Space Fakery: The Final Frontier

I have written in the past about what I call “Operation Fantasy Land.” I surmised that to the extent that Intelligence has been promoting and publicizing analysis of media fakery (and even creating an entire clueless forum devoted to the topic), they are using it to misdirect. One method of misdirection is to take it too far and lead us off into fantasy land, where we throw the baby of truth out with the bathwater of lies. Once a person comes to the realization that they have been surrounded their entire lives with an endless menagerie of lies, it is easier to convince them that the Earth is flat or that rockets can’t work in a vacuum and therefore we’ve never launched anything into space.

While I personally don’t believe either of those things are true, I could not really pinpoint where the lies end and the truth begins. I’m damned certain that Space-X didn’t launch a car into space on its way to Mars, and I’m nearly certain the Apollo imagery of men walking and riding on the moon was all faked. And I’ve also seen enough analysis of some footage from ISS to know there is fakery afoot there. But does that mean, for example, that all of the ISS imagery is faked? That nobody is really up in that tin can? Does it mean that there is no ISS and the thing we can observe through our backyard telescopes zooming through the sky is an elaborate hoax? Could be. If “Operation Fantasy Land” is a thing, then it means that fake imagery can be produced on purpose even if the thing it supposedly depicts is real.

Here is how I put it in the past: “We see the same thing with faked NASA imagery. They are using that imagery (and, I now suspect, deliberately creating obviously fake imagery) in order to misdirect people into the Flat Earth fantasy land. Just because some NASA footage is faked, doesn’t necessarily mean that all footage is faked. And even if all footage is faked, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the Earth is flat or that NASA can’t even so much as launch a satellite into space. In those examples, it’s very easy to see how the conclusions do not follow from the premises. But in other cases, it isn’t because the inferential leap is much smaller and usually more logical.”

Honestly, I’ve never really cared enough about this issue to really dig in to it and try to figure out where is the frontier between lies and truth. Nor am I willing to just throw my hands up and declare it all fake. But perhaps the readers of this blog would like to take a crack at it.

There was a long discussion in the comments of the ‘Defense of Miles Mathis’ thread (I would say it kicks off right around this comment here), and so at Jared’s suggestion I decided to devote a new post for discussion about these types of issues. He is the one who created the fake space image above using compositing. Keep in mind that promotion of Flat Earth in this thread will be grounds for immediate suspension of commenting privileges.

Here I’ll paste the most recent and relevant comments related to the question of whether it is even possible to lift heavy objects (like the Hubble telescope) into space. That conversation starts here, but there is more in the comments section below that about other topics as well. At the bottom I conclude with a request and suggestion for continuing this part of the conversation.

We don’t really have any hard evidence that Hubble is fake, do we? I mean some technical holes, but I remain unconvinced. Why? Two reasons.

One. we have other mainstream devices and observatories spitting out tons of excellent data and imagery to compare it with. The Solar Dynamic Observatory for example – which spits out new images of the sun in every spectrum, every day, and has for eight years now. And they’re really good pictures too.

Could they just have some dudes on staff to crank out new CGI art every day? Or a complex computer program to spit it out? Maybe. But take a look at those pics and tell me what you think.

And second, because I’m in CGI, and as I mentioned above this image and most of what we see from Hubble is not remotely like what the tools allow. I do a lot of particle physics stuff (mostly to try to demonstrate Miles’ theories) too and it would take me a LOT of work to come even close to that image, and I would still be able to tell it was faked. My guess is most of you would, too. I try to hit SOME level of realism but the tools aren’t geared towards such massive space sims in that fashion. Here’s what I mean. though sure there are people far more skilled than I in the field and sure if they pay them the big bucks to slave over it, they would achieve better results since they wouldn’t have to work otherwise to make a living, but:

Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t blindly follow anything. Especially from the mainstream! But unless someone could explain how or show me where that pic above of the center of the galaxy environs was faked, I remain skeptical but content with it as data to discuss for now.

Andrea (in reply to rolleikin):

Unfortunately I agree with you. I say unfortunately because I rather would believe that all these technical achievements are true.

The Hubble is a big disappointment for me.
Mathematically it is IMPOSSIBLE to bring 11 tons into low earth orbit (LEO). I encourage you to do the math.

Allegedly, they repaired it in space sending the shuttle, which is even heavier and has to return to earth. Twice impossible!

The repairs lasted four hours in sunlight. What about the orbit? They are supposed to go from sun to shadow every hour or so, not every five. I am formulating it vaguely because NASA gives typically contradictory data (which is suspicious, if you only need to read them, but is the result of contradictions that come up).

Given the mission statements, the space shuttle DIscovery had more than enough leftover delta-V to take up Hubble AND these secondary payloads:

“Secondary payloads included the IMAX Cargo Bay Camera (ICBC) to document operations outside the crew cabin and a handheld IMAX camera for use inside the orbiter. Also included were the Ascent Particle Monitor (APM) to detect particulate matter in the payload bay; a Protein Crystal Growth (PCG) experiment to provide data on growing protein crystals in microgravity, Radiation Monitoring Equipment III (RME III) to measure gamma ray levels in the crew cabin; Investigations into Polymer Membrane Processing (IPMP) to determine porosity control in the microgravity environment, and an Air Force Maui Optical Site (AMOS) experiment.”

I’m not defending NASA or whatever here out of hand, but I don’t know if I’m ready to jettison the space shuttle yet. I don’t see why the Gravity Turn isn’t a viable approach to Low-Earth-Orbit, and that’s the Shuttle’s main role really. You can’t do it sooner because those boosters and tank need to drop off clean, and the best way to do that safely is still in the vertical ascent. So the Shuttle does the Turn after that, which is where it begins to outrun the Earth’s gravity.

That’s the story, anyway. The Shuttle doesn’t have to haul 12 tons up to space by itself. Most of the acceleration is still being done by the boosters, the real heavy lifting.

Andrea:

I understand your confusion very well!
Years ago I was calculating the Apollo flights to understand once and for all if it was possible or not to fly to the moon. I don’t know enough of photography to judge if the pictures are photoshopped or not, but I am an engineer by education, so numbers are my thing!

What I realized was shocking: not only it is not possible to fly to the moon, it is not even possible to send manned stations to LEO!
I started searching the internet to see if someone else had discovered the problem. And this is how I discovered Miles!!

Obviously, Miles doesn’t address the math of rockets but I found his physics stuff very interesting. Only later I looked into his „art“ papers. Since we now understand the amount of fakery, it is not that much surprising that most of nasa is a hollywood or walt disney production…

The question is finally, what is real and what not?

I think it is realistic to assume that a rocket can reach orbit or fly into the solar system. With a small cargo (one or two tons at most).
The ratio cargo to rocket should be 1,5% at most for LEO, much less for interstellar missions. All Apollo missions are thus fake, all russian, chinese, Indian missions are fake, the ISS is fake, Hubble is fake. However I assume that a few hundred small satellites are real. So they can provide real pictures.

It is not possible to come back or land on a planet or a moon or a comet. It requires even more energy. So all rovers on planets are fake. There is no doubt about that.

If someone among the readers is upset by my statements, and thinks otherwise, please provide your numbers. I will gladly tear them apart, one by one.

Russell Taylor:

Andrea…. I tend to agree after I watched a brilliant lecture showing the math behind rocket launches but as with most of the YouTube video’s I have watched on controversial subject, they no longer seem to exist. YouTube censorship in action? The man was showing the impossibility of getting those Shuttle payloads into orbit.
We have to believe the numbers NASA give for gross lift off weights and payloads as they are the ones who should know.
Believe NASA? I can’t believe I just said that!
But they lie about so many things how can we believe the numbers?

Notice they say a few small mirrors the size of a nickel were needed, then say the thing was the size of a telephone booth. So what size was it? Tiny or huge? Maybe the booth was filled with special space engineers? Maybe it was a huge toolkit? Maybe it was a mobile canteen for the engineers to shower and get something to eat & drink?

I must politely disagree with both of you, and would like to see the math you’re using so we can find where it went wrong.

Orbital dynamics are about acceleration – ▲v (delta-v) or “change in velocity”. A space-launching craft’s limits are defined by its total ▲v-budget, which is a measure of its acceleration of course, but also a measure of its acceleration against its thrust-to-weight ratio since we have two MORE changes over time. First, the TWR increases dramatically as fuel is used, increasing the acceleration also dramatically.

That’s what the gravity turn is. You hit the point of diminishing returns on atmospheric escape, and you turn perpendicular to “outpace” the pull of gravity. You’re up high enough to negate most of the drag of the atmosphere when you begin the turn.

The Space Shuttle’s ▲v budget was more than enough on paper to pull LEO with 55,000 pounds of cargo.

The combined mass fully fueled is said to be “4,470,000 lb”, or 2,070 tons. Hubble was said to be 24,490 pounds. That makes Hubble just over HALF a percent of the total weight, at .0054.

“The ratio cargo to rocket should be 1,5% at most for LEO”

So even by your own math and logic, Hubble is 1/3 of that ratio. Even with the rest of the cargo for that mission it would have been barely 1%.

Andrea:

Please find numbers in kg, m/s etc. otherwise it becomes very confusing. Nasa does it on purpose this way, you hardly find two numbers that match. Then we go over it together.

Jared:

It’s not confusing, just simple division. We don’t need velocity in these ratios at all. You said “ratio” previously so that’s what I did. It is just percentages, which are ratios. It doesn’t matter which metric you use as long as you use the same metric for your division. The ratio is the same no matter if you use pounds, grams, stones, or copper pfennigs.

Hubble mass / total Shuttle mass = .5%, or ~½ a percent.

24,490 / 4,470,000 = 0.00548

.005 = .5%

You stated previously:
“The ratio cargo to rocket should be 1,5% at most for LEO”

Thus:
.5 / 1.5 = .333, which is 1/3.

Hubble is one-third of the mass limit you defined and less than half of Discovery’s payload limit of 55,000, which is also still below 1.5%. We can check that for you as well if you like:

55,000 / 4,470,000 = 0.01230

.012 = 1.2%

So even according to your premise, the Shuttle at max payload is still well below that “ratio cargo to rocket”. The Shuttle could have carried almost 3 Hubbles, if it could have fit them in the cargo bay. This is why I was confused about your math, because it doesn’t seem like you did any when forming your premise that they couldn’t have launched it or the following repair equipment.

Russell Taylor:

The reason I tend to agree with Andrea that the figures are made up is because the person I saw a few years ago, giving the talk was highly qualified in another area, jet propulsion I believe, and just couldn’t believe the figures he was seeing in NASAs descriptions. He analysed it in the same way Miles does and proved it didn’t make sense. But then you try to find his video and it’s gone. In it’s place are several video’s showing the same disbelief but by people who seem spooky, like they are unsure of their own math, as if they are black-washing the whole idea…or to put it another way deliberately making themselves look stupid.

We never see how far technology has progressed. The stuff they show in the media is probably 10 or more years out of date. Perfect example is the F117 Stealth bomber. No one knew it existed until someone took a blurry photo thinking it was a UFO. It wasn’t revealed to the public until 10 years later but this was 20 years after it was first test flown and put into production.

So if they are showing Humvee mounted crowd dispersing microwave weapons and admitting using them in the Iraq wars, and also laser weapons shooting down full sized drone aircraft, then I wonder what else they have up their sleeves?
How far have they developed these weapons?

Over the years there have been several maintenance missions to the Hubble, to do what exactly? Its a telescope with several specialist cameras. So why the multiple multi-million dollar missions to do what….change the flippin’ batteries? Clean the lenses?

I don’t doubt they send stuff up there but to make the ISS completely believable for the continued in-pouring of tax-dollars, I believe they fudge the numbers, sending up maybe 4 ton loads not 29 tons at a time.

They did the same trick with the Apollo 11 numbers where they brought back lots of heavy rock yet used a tiny amount of fuel to push back into lunar orbit, including lining up to rendezvous with the orbiter. With about the same computing power as a ZX81.

To push the fakery a bit more, they say the thrust when landing didn’t move a lot of dust because in a vacuum the jet efflux disperses as soon as it exits the exhaust nozzle.
Pack of lies! Watch a video of the jet thrusters on the Shuttle keeping the thing flying straight.

The burnt gas can clearly be seen exiting straight out from the thrusters and continuing in a straight line. It does not disperse in the way NASA describe….not that we need to travel down that endless avenue of deceit in this thread…
They lie about everything… isn’t that what Miles says?

Andrea:

Jared, this is supposed to be fun! Before we start, think to a Las Vegas magic show. The magician will show you a lot of (irrelevant) details and conceal the trick. Nasa is doing very smart tricks. They do it under our nose, but they are smart, intelligent and experienced.

Miles showed us that most of the time the mathematicians write equations that are not properly defined in order to extrapolate whatever result they need. If I wrote „3=7 and therefore if follows…“ everyone would call the contradiction. If I hide the same equation in a very complex formula, hardly anyone will notice.

I asked you to pick your numbers and I will be very generous with the assumptions. While the correct ratio is likely more 0.5% I don’t mind if we assume 1.5% will work as well. We have to start somewhere and I am willing to agree on a lot of numbers, even though I might know better.

To begin the show we need a fully loaded cargo and assume it can reach orbit. Don’t be too impatient, the topic is complex!

Jared:

I mean the show began already and in that show, I showed the math twice and it fell well below your personal limit of feasibility at 1.5%, so I don’t know why you can’t just admit that. It was simple math, so you don’t need to hedge on this topic. I refuse to believe one simple division is beyond your capacity. You’re hedging out of pride is all. It’s okay to be wrong – I try to do it at least once a day myself, just to keep some measure of humility.

In addition, I have logged thousands of flight tests and orbital tests in the best simulator around, KSP. Most of the craft we designed failed to get to orbit, by pilot error or design error or both. But once you dial in your ▲v-budget properly and get your gravity turn right, it’s really not that hard to get into ANY orbit. I’ve done countless Hohmann Transfers, orbit-matching, and even docking procedures as well. Landed on the Mun, and other planets too, all using existing rocketry techniques. Some fiction is involved with futuristic add-ons such as the HX and OPT-Spaceplane parts, and MechJeb automation, but it’s all based on actual, real mechanics and actual, real physics. They of course don’t have the charge field and use the modified Pi just as the mainstream does, but otherwise it is dead-on accurate and easily the most accurate simulator available.

The hardest orbits to achieve are with spaceplanes, since you have to fly into your gravity turn in a different way. You have to get up fast enough and hard enough but not vertically, and hit that 2,200 m/s velocity laterally, switching between air-breathing engines and rocketry modes, and still have enough remaining ▲v to circularize the orbit once you get up there. It’s much more difficult – and this may be why there are no spaceplanes yet, in reality too. It’s MUCH more difficult to pull off.

What this means is that the math and physics for achieving orbit are real and work. Miles has added to this and fixed big parts of it, but to claim that they don’t work means one hasn’t studied the topic, and is just putting faith in… Someone else who hasn’t studied it very well.

This doesn’t mean by any stretch that everything they tell us about the space programs and satellites and telescopes and the ISS is true, it simply means that orbital mechanics are real and we can even prove it just by watching the moon for a few months. The moon orbits the Earth, remember? Real.

Andrea:

And of course we need velocities. To reach LEO nasa tells us we need a speed of 9.3 to 10 km/s. Pick your favorite. We don’t know the direction of the speed, it could be orbital velocity, or tangential velocity or a combination. From Miles paper you should know that he found plenty of problems in the definition of orbital velocity. All, that applies to small objects, applies to rockets as well. Pick your favorite again.

At start the air friction is very relevant, so rockets start vertically, then go tangential over 20-30 km, where the atmosphere is very this. We don’t at which height they turn, pick your choice.

Delta-v is an approximation without air friction, in open space. Never mind, we will just ignore friction. The logic behind the formula is that of action equal reaction. If we let a rocket engine fire in one direction, we will get an acceleration in the opposite direction. The mass of the carburant on one side times the speed is equal to mass of the rocket on the other side times another speed. The problem is more complex by the fact that the carburant is cargo at the beginning so you need to accelerate stuff that you are going to burn. Never mind, for our imaginary rocket we will assume that the acceleration is instantaneous!

This, I hope you realize it, is a great simplification. Coincidentally the same assumption is also included in the delta-v formula. In other words, if you use it you are assuming the rocket is accelerating to the final speed without air friction, in an instant. I am accepting all these parameters, but understand we are being very generous.

For our imaginary rocket we need a starting mass, a final speed, a final orbit height. Pick your favorites.

Jared:

You don’t appear to be reading my responses anymore, so I’ll go ahead and let you play your orbital mechanics game on your own, my dear.

Being able to admit when we’re wrong is the most important thing when studying and hypothesizing science. If we can’t do that, it’s going to be difficult to learn anything or teach anything, which is the point of these conversations, wouldn’t you say? Do you genuinely want to learn about orbital dynamics, or do you just want to be right about something we already showed you were wrong about? You’re misdirecting away from the simple math at this point.

From there things started to devolve into accusations. I’d like us to try not to pull off that path and stick to substance. It seems to me that Jared’s math has not been shown to be wrong. If it is, then it should be easy to show, even if the topic is complicated. Andrea, you said you already did the math in the past and found that it doesn’t work out–there’s no way they could have brought the hubble into orbit. Would it be too much for you to respond to Jared’s calculations with calculations of your own? There is no rush to provide a substantive response if you need more time.

I was reading about the latest space pork-barrelin’, boondogglin’ wheeze…

Russian space agency Roscosmos is creating a center devoted to monitoring meteors, comets, and asteroids to ensure they don’t collide with Earth — even it means having to blow them up in space.

“As part of the creation of a monitoring system and information support for the safety of space activities in near-Earth space, we plan to launch the***Russian Center for Small Celestial Bodies***, whose main task will be to detect and track celestial bodies approaching Earth,” Igor Bakaras, a senior official at Roscosmos subsidiary TsNIIMash, told Russian-owned news agency Sputnik.

…and I thought what if the acronyms, or rather abbreviations, of all these agency fronts/facades/fakes are actually ancient phoeny words? After that silly thought, I decided to have my long New Year’s Day nap. Night night.

See I think this is absolutely a noble cause – and should have been running since at least the 1960s in every developed nation. Not that we could do anything to stop them currently, but as interplanetary travel emerges it is GOING to become a factor.

Jared, I see no indication that you were being sarcastic (symbols, emoji, etc.). This medium makes it very difficult to detect unless one has read many comments and developed a personality of the commenter. The problem I have is “if” the mapping of the moving stars and planets was done ions ago, how is it that scientists are just now trying to create a monitoring system of near-earth space? It seems mankind would have already perfected the monitoring of near-earth space before attempting the immense task of mapping the stars and planets. The Russian Center for Small Celestial Bodies sounds like another endless treasury looting scheme.

We have only had the technology to spot and identify passing lumps for a few decades. Over that time, we have come to realise that lumps of a dangerous size pass fairly close to Earth on a fairly regular basis. The term ‘not if but when’ comes to mind. Extinction sized lumps head our way maybe only once every few millions years but when is the next one due? It does make sense to monitor these things and at least attempt to dissuade them from hitting us.

I suggest a stupidly powerful laser based in orbit or on the Moon to avoid atmospheric interference.

I agree, John, that these agencies are full of shit and only exist to steal and siphon money.

I’m not at all concerned about natural phenomenon, however. Those are as of yet unavoidable and nothing can be done. It would be human-based projectiles that wold be dangerous – and in fact, to me, that we have seen none so far is proof enough there’s been no real spacefaring on its own.

If nations existed (other than as locational branding agencies for the Tyrant families), the first spacefaring nation would demonstrate this by smashing something. It’s not just fictional to me, it’s the path of least resistance. Nukes aren’t real of course, but redirect a small asteroid (say even the size of a shipping container) and you could have some serious but menacing fun. Go a little bigger, and you get “nuke” levels of energy released. And anything too much bigger, things get really nasty.

I am not so sure it is a silly thought. I’ve wondered this myself after Gerry showed us in his ancient spook papers how hebrew words lack vowels and lend themselves to puns. Perhaps all these abbreviated names start life as such words and are then fleshed out for the misdirection of us peasants.

Oh, if you start to interprete acronyms, you will be surprised by how many puns and references to them you will find
My favorit is WTC
that matches with both William The Conqueror and World Trade Center.

More hubris coming out of LIGO. When I first read about the project years back I recall that the reason given for the need for two of these hugely expensive observatories was to prevent false positives, i.e. both sites needed to make the same detection for it to be valid. My recollection was confirmed by a quick search, e.g.:

“LIGO has two observatories to act as a check on the other to rule out that a potential gravitational-wave signal detection is not due to a local, terrestrial disturbance; both facilities will detect a true gravitational wave moving at the speed of light nearly simultaneously.”

Well they seem to be scaling back on that requirement. They claim they’ve found another “neutron star merger”:

“The August 2017 neutron star merger was witnessed by both LIGO detectors, one in Livingston, Louisiana, and one in Hanford, Washington, together with a host of light-based telescopes around the world”

And then they announce the new one:

“The April 2019 event was first identified in data from the LIGO Livingston detector alone. The LIGO Hanford detector was temporarily offline at the time, and, at a distance of more than 500 million light-years, the event was too faint to be visible in Virgo’s data.”

Ah, so now just one observatory needs to make the detection!

There’s more. Virgo is the new European gravitational wave observatory. You would think its failure to detect this latest merger would be a problem, but no, it’s actually a confirmation! Get this quote:

“This is our first published event for a single-observatory detection,” says Caltech’s Anamaria Effler, a scientist who works at LIGO Livingston. “But Virgo made a valuable contribution. We used information about its non-detection to tell us roughly where the signal must have originated from.”

Unbelievable! They are using a lack of an experimental observation to bolster their claims.

Exposure. Go into your bathroom at night and try to take a photo of your vanity lights, on. If you have a decent camera or phone it will autoadjust and you can see the bulbs, but everything else will be MUCH darker. Or the bulbs or whatever you have will be blown out – one or the other, but it certainly won’t be what your eyes see. One might say this Spacey photos was shot by a professional, which might be true on its own, but doesn’t account for the exposure issues in this photo. Even the glow of that rocket emission is fake.
Colors. Our fake rocket-glow is very orange, which we all associate with fire of course. And some of the exhaust clouds ARE tinted orange. But most of the rest of the scene has none or little of this tint, including the towers structures to the right especially and the buildings down below on the right almost entirely. We have two light sources here, the sun and the rocket exhaust. But this would also be true of the CLOUDS above – since orange light still travels at light speed. They should have an orange fringe on them as well. They do not.
Nor do the steam clouds front and center at bottom. There’s SOME orange on the upper edges but why are these orange photons not diffusing through the same way (not the same intensity, but the same HUE) as the steam below the ship itself. It should all be VERY saturated with the color of the exhaust, which would be the brightest light source IN the scene, and certainly the most colorful.
Grain/noise. Look closely at the clouds on the left and bottom left. See how noisy they are, how much grain is in those clouds? Now scan around the rest of the photo, including the sky and clouds and distance. There’s SOME noise, but not much. The main structures have almost none. The exhaust/steam clouds below/center have zero noise. The noise on the left/bottom left is a telltale sign of CGI rendering. They didn’t let it render long enough, basically. The central clouds, yes, but not those bigger ones. They just figured it would look “photographic”, which it does but the UNIFORMITY of the noise tells the story to me. That’s how my renderings look when I don’t let them render long enough. Though I’d denoise them in Photoshop, you still lose clarity. Denoising doesn’t and cannot add detail. It just blurs the noise.

Thank you very much indeed Jared for your professional opinion and taking the time to show me the basics. Fantastic stuff. I have read through your “walkthrough” but I’m going to study the image again tonight and actually start making notes on your advice, especially on spotting noise and the effects of light. This is all very subtle stuff now (for the lay person) and the fakery is only going to get worse — again, for the untrained eye. I also don’t want to turn up again and asking the same basic questions, “Whaaaah Jared, I can’t see nuffin’ Help me plx” 😛

nada0101 said: “I also don’t want to turn up again and asking the same basic questions, “Whaaaah Jared, I can’t see nuffin’ Help me plx””

I’m not really a professional at this type of dissection, but have learned a lot from Miles and just combined that with my own CGI skills. I’ve DONE fluid smoke/steam simulations before and of course I do rendering for a living. So spotting some of these things is just a bit easier for me. To be fair, it’s a VERY good paste-up. A professional did it, or group of them. They just didn’t match the noise and lighting and clouds and stuff very well. They got lazy, but it would fool most people.

But nothing here is “definitive”, it’s really just a matter of “reasonable doubt”. I doubt the authenticity, for the reasons I stated. Could it be real? Maybe, but I DOUBT it. I don’t buy it. That’s all we can really do here, is exhibit our doubts and share them. That’s what forensics are all about, right?

I am new to this too, all my knowledge is from Miles’ papers and Jared’s great comments, but the part that first stuck out for me in this picture was the lower right. Front to back we have the crisp derrick, then smoke, then a shed, then more smoke, then the other derrick to the right. This passage does not look natural to me, like it’s an obvious layering of five or so layers that don’t blend together.

Excellent point, arborfest. They really do NOT blend or interact well at all. There seems to be little or no physical link to these areas and the exhaust clouds, as though the “artist” tried to leave the structures in but add the exhaust around them to fill it in. Kind of a “color within the lines” mentality. I do it too even in my own CGI/digital art – try to show EVERY detail at the expense of making a better composition. It’s subconscious but telling.

First and foremost, probably any and every photograph shot by a professional or a prosumer photographer in the last few decades or so, has been Photoshopped, run through Lightroom or some semblance of a photo editing program. Period. Amen. Break out the Hallelujah Chorus.

When first I saw this image, thought, wow, great exposure. Perfect. Which then of course, made the mind say—not likely. There’s motion. In the rocket, in the flame and in the cloud plumes. Where is it? Since there is no actual motion blur, this image had to have a flash of some sort to stop said motion. Don’t care how fabulous the lens/camera is, it is physically incapable of stopping motion with no blur, except with a flash. Now take a look again at said image and let your mind hazard a guess just how far away the camera is from the object it’s imaging? Large f-ing flash, no? Surely it’s camera mounted as well… /s

Have to admit this is well done and professional but make no mistake, it was done, with at least five layers but would venture to guess, probably more, possibly with some HDR to boot. Jared and arborfest are right and they are deep into the pixels of the image. In this case it became somewhat necessary.

Everyone should understand that a camera cannot see what your eyes actually see. The image is simply a representation of what your eyes see and your brain interprets, whether film, digital or video. Take your phone, a good or great camera, go outside to a sunset, sunrise or something that isn’t in total sunlight, see how the light looks and affects your eyes, then snap the image to the aforementioned camera and look at the results. Guaranteed it will NOT be what you “saw” and are still experiencing as you’re standing in that environment. Doesn’t matter how good you are with exposure. Not possible. A mechanical device is never a replacement for any of the human senses. Which is also why AI is not even remotely plausible.

Seeing these frauds is not as difficult as we want to make them out to be. You already have the necessary skills just based on Miles’ and company’s readings. Whole lot of frauding going on. You wouldn’t be here if you didn’t. The key is to always be aware to view them as a detached observer. No bias, no preconceived notions, just observe. Your brain will compile and catalog the data and even make predictions based on that data. Your mind will then lead you to the correct assumption—if you give it no filters to skewer the results, including the brain’s predictions. This one is well done but still done. You’ll also be able to start seeing patterns. Floating people, lines around cuts, abnormal shadow blurs, blurred pixels, impossible light, etc, etc.

In reality, an image is just that, it is NOT real. Only a representation. We all now know, that’s exactly what the phoney’s want us to “see.” And most will…but not all. This is an example of them finally having to get way more professional, because of the likes of everyone here—yet—still a fail.

What’s even more preposterous is that this is said to be a still from a video shot on a cheap-ass GoPro. But try as I might, I couldn’t find the video that “matched”. And GoPro makes cool little adventure cameras, no beef with them as devices, but no. They never reach this level of quality/clarity/color response.

its worth watching just to see how Brain Stir 101 is happening. Its sooooo in your face

The scientists here even ADMIT they have no idea what a singularity is

They start with the premise of what they believe a photo of a black hole SHOULD look like (after admitting numerous times it just ain’t possible to photograph a black hole)

They go into some shit physics which tells us Black holes just aren’t even really believed in in thrown circles which is why they need proof/evidence

They then tells its impossible to take a pic of a black hole, and then they set about taking a pic of black hole

After failing miserably to get any kind of data, they then bring in some programmers to set about the 3 million gigabytes of data (thats 3 petabytes of data) stored on what looks like enough disks to store a few terabytes

Sothey then distribute the pictureofwhat they expect a pic to lookalike, and lo and behold…. they come up with picture that looks exactly like that picture

brilliant. Proof. Nobel prizes in the wings. greatest thing since sliced bread and all

Except there is a string of scientists just before the big reveal who all admit they know nothing and they need……something…a stroke of genius….. somebody….. to come up with that new theory that will make history (” coz we have no idea what is going on”)

Really -they actually say that. Anybody out there know anyone who fits that bill? Anyone??
Oh… hold on – I know a guy…….

Oh my word what a perfect example of the state of physics in microcosm.

I think the only antidote is humour, and I commend to you Gullivers Travels by the great satirist Jonathan Swift (yet to be outed by Miles I think).

From Gullivers third journey,

britannica.com/topic/Gullivers-Travels

“On Gulliver’s third voyage he is set adrift by pirates and eventually ends up on the flying island of Laputa. The people of Laputa all have one eye pointing inward and the other upward, and they are so lost in thought that they must be reminded to pay attention to the world around them. Though they are greatly concerned with mathematics and with music, they have no practical applications for their learning. Laputa is the home of the king of Balnibarbri, the continent below it. Gulliver is permitted to leave the island and visit Lagado, the capital city of Balnibarbri. He finds the farm fields in ruin and the people living in apparent squalor. Gulliver’s host explains that the inhabitants follow the prescriptions of a learned academy in the city, where the scientists undertake such wholly impractical projects as extracting sunbeams from cucumbers.”

Though that doesn’t sound as ridiculous as extracting photographs from fantasies, perhaps Mr Swifts contemporary spooks had yet to sink so low or were still just waiting for the required technology to emerge.

We did the first 2 books in English Literature at school. Better than all the Shakespeare and Jane Austen torture for sure.

they say in the program too that it cost around 60 Million bucks for this experiment to happen. Just this experiment though.

Not the whole infrastructure and method and theory up to this point which has cost billions or more likely trillions to build telescopes on volcanoes in Hawaii and the South Pole and all over the globe

They talk about Einstein a couple of times too and attribute the whole idea of black holes and event horizons to his theories of relativity after telling you straight to your face that Einstein didn’t believe in black holes or the theory

They TELL you these black holes “shouldn’t exist” because whenever you get infinity in the result of an equation, you have done something wrong or divided by zero or something mathematically impossible.

This is like a public confession veiled in a Nobel prize casting trailer.

Nada – you didn’t lower the tone – you got closer to the result than they did and not a telescope in sight

On another note – I watched Ad Astra with great anticipation. what a waste of time and effort that film is. Gravity looks like a physics masterclass next to Ad Astra. Crap Premise, Crap Physics, Crap Film. And badly made. Pirates on the moon. ‘Nuff said.

This one isn’t exactly space fakery, but computer fakery expanded on the topic of so-called “Quantum Computers”. The other companies not invested in THAT fake tech have already outpaced it using actual tech, of course.

“Toshiba says it created an algorithm that beats quantum computers using standard hardware
“The company hopes to commercialize it in the financial industry”

According to its inventor, Hayato Goto, it draws inspiration from the way quantum computers can efficiently comb through many possibilities.

Programmers will recognize Goto as a common programming language command whose use has been actively deplored since the 1970s (it causes execution to jump (“go to”) wherever you tell it, which can lead to hard to follow programs.) It would sort of be like a NASCAR driver named Bobby Edsel; it jumps out at you.

Recently and for no known reason whatsoever, the laws of physics (appear to have) stopped working in my kitchen and i’m looking for a bit of a steer please?

We recently had a baby girl and we sterilise evrything before we feed her in Milton tablet dissolved water

We only use sterilsed (bioled) water to make up her milk mixtures (she is off the breast milk now)

So, every now and again we have a problem. I like my tea and coffee so i might boil the kettle at any given point through the day

Sometimes i dont excercise the correct judgement and do it just before her feeding time which measn we have to cool the water down as rapidly as possible while keeping it inside the sterile delivery system (aka the BottleBottleBottle)

Whenever it happens to me, i pour 180 ml into an open bottle and DONT put the lid and teat on. I put the bottle into a cup/mug and fill with cold water and every now and again i swirl the water so the contact surface with the bottle is always changing.

My missus, however, puts the lid on the bottle to seal it and then puts it in a big jug of cold water.

I have been telling her for ages that sealing the bottle doesnt allow the heat to escape as quickly and steam builds up and that with MY method, the heat escapes more quickly and the bottle cools more quickly

after a couple of weeks of to-ing anf fro-ing we decided to have an actual competition to see who was right

She won. By a looong way. i was in the 14 minute region and she was in the 5-7 minute region

I would like to know why 180ml of nearly boiling water cools faster while in a sealed bottle surrounded by LOTS of cold water as opposed to 180ml of same temp water in same bottle etc, enough cold water to completely float the bottle (just and no more) in a mug

Well my initial guess would be that when you open the lid and also place the warm bottle in cold liquid, it creates two vectors – one up (obviously) and one OUT. So they kinda “fight” over where those photons are going to go, creating a sort of dead zone in the center. You’ve got charge pushing heat up but also a density gradient out.

With the sealed, colder-water method you still have charge pushing UP but it’s not fighting with the out-vector in the same way. It’s reflecting back through (from the lid) and pushing more photons OUT along the way.

Think of it as a push/pull if that helps. In your method, you have a pull “out” and a push “up”. In hers, the pull “out” trumps the push up, and is more effective because the water is cooler. Cooler = more readily absorbs more photons.

I can show an example using fans, if that might help? But I could be wrong, that’s just something I ran into recently cooling one of my CPUs. I’ll diagram it if that helps.

Haggis: I’m thinking about how water is boiled under low and high pressure, then working back from there. Mountaineers know that water is more difficult to boil at high altitude due to the lack of air pressure (density). A pressure cooker allows water to boil very efficiently due to the air inside being sealed in, and as the heat rises the water goes well beyond 100C and so cooks the food more quickly.
So looking at the cooling of already hot water, I’m wondering if the high pressure air inside the bottle is dumping heat more quickly, in the same way it gains heat more quickly in a pressure cooker – but in reverse. The open bottle is at a lower air pressure and may follow the open pan boiling method.
It does seem counterintuitive because the steam released from the open bottle is helping lose heat by evaporation but the sealed bottle is resisting that heat loss because there’s what seems to be slowed evaporation, the water vapour being trapped, in a similar way to that of a thermos flask.
Then we have to consider the pressure being released in an invisible jet through the teat hole. Does this remove heat more efficiently than the warm water vapour simply rising from the bottle top? When an effervescent drink can is opened, the CO2 under pressure is released and rushes out of the solution. So I’m seeing the rapid expulsion of hot water vapour from the teat hole increasing the release of heat from the water. The water vapour (gas) isn’t just on the water surface but is being formed throughout the liquid, so this increased release rate seems feasible to me. As the water vapour gas is at a lower density to that of the water, it is trying to escape and the rapid expulsion of vapour from the hole helps it by creating a pressure gradient just above the waters surface.

That’s my theory.

Did you know that you heat a liquid in a saucepan more quickly by letting it heat up, rather than stirring. Intuition tells you that moving the water more efficiently past the pan bottom, where the most heat is, that this would heat the liquid faster but this is not the case. The reason has something to do with my theory above. Tiny pockets of water vapour (gas) being created near the pan bottom will normally rise and escape from the liquid, losing heat by evaporation but stirring speeds up this process losing heat more quickly thereby slowing down the heating process.

Which is probably why water takes more heating at high altitude. The warm water vapour (gas) finds it easier to escape because the air pressure above the liquid is much lower allowing it to escape more easily from solution, where it’s under pressure.

That’s how a diving wet suit keeps the diver warm. The small amount of water in the suit is heated by the body and the diver stays relatively warm. If he removes the suit, the large amount of cold water around him absorbs his body heat and he gets cold fast.

Here is a link to Massimo Mazzucco’s documentary on the fake moon landing, American Moon. I haven’t watched it yet. His documentary on 911 was decisive and I still recommend it although I realize it is in many ways a limited hangout. I assume the same is true for American Moon. Very persuasive but with LH elements.

Thanks for the link Josh. I am just getting started on it. Funny how in the recorded dialog between Kennedy and Webb at minute 7, Kennedy sounds nothing like Kennedy and the conversation is almost gibberish.

You are welcome. I guess now I better make time to watch it. Here is a link to a Reddit thread on the documentary. The first comment lists all of the key points/questions made throughout the documentary. And then further down somebody goes through and tries to rebut each one of them in a series of comments. I didn’t have patience to read through all of them, but it could be useful as an exercise to see which of Mazzucco’s points are the weakest and which ones stand up well to ‘debunking.’

Regards to the theory that Aldrin was replaced by a look-alike at some point. I briefly looked into that awhile back, comparing pics of younger Buzz to older Buzz. They look like the same person to me. I did not see pics of them looking like they were different heights. We have seen that when they paste people into pics they vary their height. So that could just be a product of sloppy photo-montage. I don’t know.

I do remember looking at the genealogy of the Apollo 11 astronauts and tracing one of them back to Salem. But then I tried to retrace that later and couldn’t find it.

Haven’t quite finished it, but so far love it. It is fabulous, my favorite film of the past five years. No real LH clues yet, though at a stretch it might have been said to have been confirming the Mars rover or SpaceX. But that would be just by mentioning them in comparison.

Yes thanks for that link Josh. I thought I’d seen all the evidence there was to see but that particular video shows dozens of details I’ve not seen before. Nice to see them deflect the ‘no stars’ theory. Great detailed analysis of the flag waving too. Unlike the main thrust of that argument showing the old flag wave, they concentrated on finding individual details that prove the impossibility of outside interference. The flags moved by themselves and so must have been caused by air movement. Also the puff of dust from the closing lid…highly damning that one. Still counterintuitive to the casual observer though.
Mythbusters are just so embarrassing. They have zero shame and are supposedly smart, so must be deliberately lying. Everyone has their price I guess.

Took me a while to watch it. A good overall insight.
Don’t know why, but that “Myth-thrusters” vacuum chamber with sand footprint in it caught my eye. Doubtful there was vacuum in it. Those handling gloves looked too saggy. But that’s unimportant.
Families will have to take their masks off on the “mooning” act, but, I guess, not before alternative drainage – global “breathing” taxation – is i/ensured.

As soon as I finished American Moon I wanted to watch it again. I snorted in glee so many times! One thing I still don’t understand is why Fox blew the cover of Apollo so many years ago with a similar but much shorter expose. Fox is the last place I would expect to do that. Anybody got an ideas?

Gigs of crap:
The wife has a problem with Win 10 where something keeps saved log files until the hard drive fills up with many gigabytes of crap. All saved to the Windows/TEMP folder so easy enough to empty but a pain to keep doing. Over a couple of months it can save about 19 gigs of log files….many thousands.

Fox:
Maybe they were going to expose the hoax but decided not to, due to the effect it might have on future space hoaxes. It also puts them in a great position to blackwash the heck out of stuff in the future, in a “we all make mistakes” kind of way.

Two thoughts about the Fox News documentary. What I have noticed is that there seems to be a very clear attempt to wrap conspiracy theories in partisanship, with most of them being broadcast to Republican/right wing audiences. Sandy Hook is a good example. It was publicized as a ‘Tea Party’ conspiracy about a gun-grab attempt by Obama. (There are other conspiracies aimed at the left, like the Trump-Russian conspiracy to influence the election, etc.) The advantage of doing this is that the opposing partisan side is very quick to dismiss the conspiracy. They see no reason to even look at the evidence for it at all. It’s a form of blackwashing. It is no coincidence that they tied Alex Jones to Trump early on, saying that he was advising Trump.

Now whenever I bring up any conspiracy to my left-leaning family, the first thing I hear is, especially from my mom is, “did you get that from Alex Jones.” As far as they are concerned, the only person out there promoting any of these issues is Alex Jones or, worse, Donald Trump. (Actually when I brought up vitamin A the first question was did get my information from Rush Limbaugh — meanwhile I’ve never given any of them any reason to believe I agree with Republicans or lean to the right).

It basically ensures that no conspiracy will be considered at all by more than half the population, so it limits the spread of truth and at the same time helps to reinforce divisions. So I think picking Fox News for the documentary is fitting in that regard.

I would also guess that the Fox documentary presented some evidence that was easily refuted (or seemingly refuted). By presenting low-hanging fruit, it was set up as a fall guy, so that anybody could go and read the debunking of the documentary and come away feeling satisfied that there was nothing to it. If you do a web search on the documentary, it is still being used as a straw man target in articles from last year. Here is a link to a YouTube page that has (I believe) the Fox documentary broken up into 4 parts (1, 2a, 2b, and 3) if anyone wants to check: https://www.youtube.com/user/russana/videos

Nobody can easily rebut the points made in American Moon, which I finished watching last night. It was indeed splendid and, as I expected, decisive in the way that Mazzucco’s documentary “9/11: The New Pearl Harbor” was also decisive (and also catalyzed by deep and permanent journey down the Rabbit hole). I am sure you will never hear American Moon mentioned in any mainstream outlet like ‘The Guardian’ and ‘Slate’ (where I found the recent articles on the Fox documentary).

But as much as I liked it, I would like to point out some of the limited hangout elements I see in the documentary. I should state that I’m agnostic on the question of whether these were legitimate attempts to misdirect or whether they were simply strategic decisions to bracket the film’s scope in order to create a coherent and convincing film.

It doesn’t really question any other aspects of our constructed reality. Or in other words it uses some truth to reinforce larger lies. For example, it does not question the US-USSR division. It reinforces the idea that they were independent countries engaged in genuine conflict and competition (and later limited cooperation). Still, I did appreciate the explanations that it gave for why the Russians didn’t blow the whistle, because Russia is something that comes up right away in discussing this conspiracy, and the answer “well in fact the the US and Russia are controlled by the same people and the division is really an illusion” just makes you look even more insane in most people’s eyes. So it’s good to have a “limited hangout” rebuttal to that point when trying to open others’ eyes even as I recognize that it doesn’t reveal the whole picture. But people can’t really handle too much at once. I don’t know what Mazucco’s view is on this issue in general, though I don’t believe he has proposed that this level of reality is an illusion as well.

Along these lines, it does not raise any questions at all about other aspects of the space program. This is something that we have gone back and forth on ad nauseum in this forum, and I don’t wish to reopen that discussion. But I have seen enough evidence to seriously question other aspects of the space program, and this documentary gives the impression that everything was kosher prior to ’67 and also after the Apollo program ended. Basically everything in low earth orbit or unmanned beyond that can be believed, including the Gemini program and the deaths of those 3 astronauts in 67, just not the Apollo program.

The documentary maintains that NASA was serious about it but realized in ’67 that it couldn’t happen. But the reports they cite about the space program during the 60’s indicate that NASA was never very serious about the space program. I think one of the quotes from an audit was something to the effect that senior NASA managers didn’t seem to take it very seriously. Especially knowing what we now know, it would not be going to far to suspect that they were never serious about it and that much if not all of the Gemini program was also fake. So to my mind that is another LH aspect of the documentary. While the documentary does not rule out the possibility, it pretty clearly implies that the rest is legit.

This is somewhat similar to his 9/11 documentary, which is on the hand very comprehensive and decisive but on the other hand implies that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were not Intelligence constructs and says not a word about all the fake footage that was used. (It does at least show that there was no real crash in Pennsylvania and unlikely for a plane to have hit the Pentagon.) That film also doesn’t rule out these possibilities per se but at the same time never asks the question. On the one hand, this is a defensible strategy, since the information already presented is already pretty revolutionary for anyone in the thrall of the matrix. Adding something about film footage fakery might have made it just too overwhelming and even harder for people to swallow. I know for me it probably would have been. (And this is not to mention any evidence that it was not just conventional explosives that brought the buildings down on that day.)

American Moon dismisses the argument that the pictures are fake because we can’t see the stars, and I agree with the reason given. However, there is another pertinent question it never raises: why did the astronauts never take pictures of the stars? If all they had to do was change their exposure time and point the cameras up, then why didn’t they? One reason this question may not have been raised is that we still see the same problem with today’s missions, where they never seem to take pictures of the stars. Why not?

The movie spends a lot of time towards the end about the shadows not being parallel. But it only focuses on one picture, while there are dozens showing the same problem. I would have wanted them to show those other pictures. Otherwise it is too easy for people to dismiss a single picture as a fluke.

I also would have wanted the movie to spend some time talking about theories of how the hoax could have been pulled off. It mentions early on that only a few NASA employees would have needed to be involved, which I agree with, and yet I would have wanted to see the film offer a plausible scenario for exactly how it could have been pulled off and how many people would need to have been involved. Though on the other hand, since it would have been speculative, it might have simply given people ammunition against an otherwise extremely convincing film. Despite my misgivings, this is definitely the documentary I will recommend to anyone who expresses curiosity or skepticism regarding the Moon Landing hoax, as I do with his 9/11: The New Pearl Harbor.

”One thing I still don’t understand is why Fox blew the cover of Apollo so many years ago with a similar but much shorter expose. Fox is the last place I would expect to do that. Anybody got an ideas?”

My idea is that it is a form of “limited hangout.” A red herring of sorts. Like Richard Nixon participating in horrendous war crimes but being judged a villain only by his alleged involvement in a petty burglary.

I have a feeling that they, PTB, want to expose it – at least parts of “them” eager for new money influx -, they are planning for it to happen, eventually and in a controlled manner, when they are forced to show some progress in more then just LE orbit to new generations.
They will have to admit rather soon that space is much more hostile, in order for them to be able to plan new, pioneering manned missions based on new technologies for which the public was told were already developed. They must provide some reasons for renewed drainage of public money.
Symptoms for that train of though:
When I offer links (like Make Believe) in YT comments under some highly promoted debunking or propaganda video, I am immediately met by wolf pack of monitoring agents acting as a unit, although the debunking video is an old one, posted years ago and watched by millions. These wolf packs are on the surface challenging me, but in a such a manner, so that I would provide as much as possible factual input to unsuspecting reader (“outsider”). It seems that the terrain is being prepared, public’s doubts empowered with logical and factual explanation in very systematic progression, step by step discourse. As long as I am playing this “game” of steered exposure they are courteous in rebuttals, but if I end “debate” suddenly (lack of time) then they get snide and offensive. But they never loose any energy going into real debate about content of the links I provided, they expect all the work to be done from my side. They are just lazy, bored (it it very repetitive job for them – I guess arguments in comments are very predictable and safe -, or too busy with monitoring.
I think that Moon hoax will blow open, better said fizzle out under supervised conditions. In what extent, remains to be seen and depends on which families (how soon and in what amount) need new money.

@Josh: I also watched it last night. Decent, worth sharing to others that haven’t tumbled too far down the rabbit holes, but its a limited hangout for sure. Good points.

Another example is how it treats John F Kennedy in the beginning. Not only does it accept his assassination as real, but they make it seem he was skeptical of the Apollo program from the beginning. Not sure about that.

i started watching, and had the same
reaction as josh to jfk’s voice on tape.
first listen, no way is that jfk. second
time, i heard those little bits of inflection
at the end of some words or sentences
that are jfk-like.

perhaps illustrating the difference
between oratorial jack and conversational
jack. when did some of us ever hear
him in private conversation?

Technically Miles made the observation first about JFK’s voice. I had the same thought as you and thought to see if I could find a recording of him having a normal conversation. But the pitch is just so much lower than his public speaking voice. It’s hard to imagine it’s the same person.

yes, it was miles’ mention of it that made me
want to listen to it. yeah, for me it first seemed
like it couldn’t he him. i’m forced to guess yes,
if i HAVE to guess, after noticing those voice
inflections that seem unique to him.

Some years ago I wrote (can’t remember where) my speculation that JFK’s public speaking voice (and probably RFKs too) was not natural but was an affectation designed to help them “disappear” after their fake assassinations. A person can be recognized as much by their voice as their face. They did this deliberately because they knew long in advance what the plan for them was to be “assassinated.”

Abe Lincoln’s public speaking voice was also said to be unusually high and this may also have been an affectation for the same reason.

Thank you Josh for linking American Moon! So many convincing arguments, more than I was expecting, about something I wasn’t up to speed about. Now I’m checking Mazzucco’s other videos.

I was wondering, did Khrushchev really mean to use the slang expression, “to moon”? Today I checked the words more closely, and decided, Yes, I think he did mean that, or something similar. I think he sounds like he is making an inside joke, hinting that he knows sending people to the Moon has to be a hoax from the get-go. (I’m figuring this out using Google Translate; maybe later I’ll run it by someone who knows Russian.)

(0:08:00) “Well, let’s wish them success. And we will see how they fly there, and how they will land there, or to be more correct, ‘moon’ there.”

The “zemlya” in “prizemlyatsya” can mean “Earth” as well as “land”, and Krushchev plays with the word, correcting “zemlya” to “lunya” to make “prilunyatsya”, or “to Moon” rather than “to Earth” i.e. “to land”.

Is “prilunyatsya” a word? Yes, Google Translate recognizes it, as long as I enter it in Cyrillic, “прилунятся”. The meaning is “take advantage of” (!)

So it’s a wordplay that ends up meaning, both in Russian and in English, “We see what you’re up to, you scoundrels!”

I’ve also watched Mazuccos other videos. I think the cancer one is worthy of a lot closer attention, but probably on the health matters forum. I learnt much from that one, its just a shame the herbal cancer remedies mentioned seem to keep their formulae a closely guarded secret unless I missed something.

I would posit that if it’s a secret then it’s not real/true/feasible etc. If they show the ingredient list then each item in that list can be tested, researched and proven effective or ineffective. The salesman doesn’t want that attention if it’s snake oil he’s selling.

I enjoyed the Moon Hoax video and I have the last hour of the 911 video to watch. Only problem is, after sitting through all the usual arguments about demolition and structural integrity and surviving Vmax + 80%, the one, and in my mind most important theory, hasn’t been mentioned once, even though the Pentagon and Shanksville field holes were provably not cause by a large jet airliner, the no-planes theory hasn’t even been conjectured. I am hoping this will be the coup de graĉe before the end of this presentation.
I embraced that theory after someone said that only Chinese whispers would be needed to spread the plane hit tower theory. The later CGI video etching the earlier whispers as reality into peoples minds. Place a dozen agents amongst the crowd in full view of the towers. The initial bombs go off, making the pathetic roadrunner shape (got to look like a plane shape to be believable right?), then as people start asking wtf was that, the agents spread the word that they saw a plane hit the building. After 15 minutes hundreds of people think that a plane hit the building…yet no one actually saw it. Notice the Chinese whispers turn the plane black, white, grey, military, small, big, huge. Just like the pretend witnesses at the Pentagon, big, small, white, silver, markings, no markings.
The second tower is a little more tricky as by now there were lots of witnesses looking at the towers. But how many were watching on the side the second plane was supposed to hit? Wasn’t that where everyone from the towers was being evacuated? And with hundreds of phone cameras pointing at the towers from the other side, why do we only get a handful of shots that look like poor CGI? Why have we not seen personal, private, cell phone footage from independent sources showing without a doubt that a second plane hit the towers? YouTube should have dozens and dozens of these independent clips but there are none. And all the official clips look like CGI with the major balls up of the planes nose momentarily protruding from the opposite side of the building. I disagree that it was Hollywood that produced the footage. I think it must have been Disney.

My mate has a video clip of a UFO landing outside his house. Did it on his phone.
If the Pentagon and Shanks’ holes were fake and made by either missiles or placed explosives, then why should we get hooked up on believing any planes were used.
When they deflect attention by saying that the jets were not passenger but military jets, it gives 90% of the conspiracy folk a new game to play. How many times have I heard people say, “no planes…don’t be ridiculous”? The biggest and most ridiculous lies often turn out to be the truth.

Favourite quote is where the guy goes down to the ground floor then remembers he left people up there, so he legs it back up, above where the alleged plane hit, to tell them how to get down, then returns to the ground floor. Over 3,000 dead? I need someone to explain to me how that is possible. Oh and the same 3,000 dead at Pearl Harbour pfppftptpf!

“I would posit that if it’s a secret then it’s not real/true/feasible etc. If they show the ingredient list then each item in that list can be tested, researched and proven effective or ineffective. The salesman doesn’t want that attention if it’s snake oil he’s selling.”

I hope I haven’t put you off checking out the vid, I think I did an extremely poor job of selling it, as it were. In fact the video itself isn’t trying to sell us anything other than the idea that there are effective cures out there which have been quashed by the FDA etc.

There was stuff on the causes of cancer towards the end I hadn’t encountered before. Also some of it references records and interviews from the 40s through to the 70s so evidence is quite sparse, and I still found it compelling even if it lacked the detail I would have wanted. That could be because it was aimed at an audience with a short attention span, or it could just be a con job. For me the jury is still out.

I’ll certainly be watching it as I don’t dismiss anything out of hand.

I just know enough about how the immune system works and enough about how the pharmaceutical system works to know that, if I refuse to take their drugs and eat their rainbow, my immune system will sort out the cancerous cells on autopilot. That’s what it’s been learning to do for many thousands of years and to prove it works, there are billions of us.
But I’m always open to learn something new. Most herbs have high carotenoids but are used in small quantities, so not a big problem, but I do get highly sceptical about miracle cures of any kind.You see, that’s the main driver of the vitamin A detox. It isn’t a cure, it’s an elimination of a toxin. The cure happens coincidentally. Stop poisoning yourself and your body will recover.

Take for instance trying to prove to someone that retinol is toxic. The mainstream already admit this but state that it is rare.
They also admit that retinoic acid is transported around the body wrapped up inside a retinol binding protein molecule, to prevent the acid from damaging cells on it’s travels. How then, when the retinol gets to it’s destination, and is released for the cells in say, the retina, to use it, does it not then go on to damage cells in the retina or nearby if it misses it’s target? Contradiction 101. It is transported to be used by the immune system, the skin, the retina, the kidneys, then how does it know which cells to destroy and which to leave alone?
That’s the type of contradiction that proves to me that the mainstream are lying their collective asses off.

So many miracle cures these days. They can’t all be right can they? That’s my starting point. I’ll watch it tomorrow.

Thanks Graham, I’ll watch the cancer one. Does sounds like a good topic for Health Matters. I’ve been meaning to post about Johanna Budwig there. I’d have hoped Mazzucco would find out what’s in the proprietary formulas, but oh well.

Here is a list of the English-version Massimo Mazzucco films, with links:

“Great documentary indeed. But they didn´t see the most convincing piece of evidence: that Buzz Aldrin was replaced with an actor. If you compare the old and new pictures and videos you can see that the supposed Aldrin is today SHORTER than the real Aldrin, he has a DIFFERENT VOICE TYPE, he has more HAIR today than 50 years ago, his CHIN and his NOSE are different. It´s amazing that most haven´t noticed this yet.”

I haven’t made a study of this but I did briefly compare photos of young and old Aldrin and there are enough differences to make this seem like a possibility.

His voice and mannerisms seem to match very well. Most people shrink in height as they age, some more than others. Depends on lifestyle. Camera angles can be extremely deceiving. Stallone and Schwarzenegger never look like a pair of midgets in their films.
I couldn’t see anything particularly awkward in the analysis. The points made seemed accurate and well studied.
If I walked on the moon and was asked to swear on a bible that I had done so, I wouldn’t hesitate, would you? The refusals have never been explained.

I’ve worked on many Hollywood sets and stages and the Apollo astronaut “moon” footage looks like exactly that to me — actors on a set. But, it’s hard to communicate that to someone unfamiliar with such things. It’s good to see in the America Moon film that Apollo “moon” stills were shown to experienced photographers who could immediately see that the lighting in the photos reveals that they were indeed shot on a set and could not have been taken on the moon.

I’ve enjoyed Mythbusters in some instance, especially when it comes to explosives and ballistic gel slow-mos.

But they get anything and everything wrong when they reach physics, and just pander away. That’s where their budget comes from, not from ad revenue. Ad rev goes a long way but has a hard limit. These guys have such a tiny audience to begin with, it’s not even realistic to me.

I mean, on top of their shit physics. Which are just terribly in almost every instance.

re: mercury in vaccines may be good for
you! i linked to this page on another thread.http://harvoa.org/polio/overview.htm
scroll down about 1/3rd to see an ad from
Time mag “ddt is good for me”! (year 1947)

mercury has been greatly (tho not completely)
removed from vaccines. aluminum salts are
now the most used, and dangerous adjuvant
in the vaccines. search on “aluminum in
vaccines” and you will of course get pages
of results from msm telling you how safe it
is, even for little children, and telling you
how we encounter plenty of aluminum in our
everyday lives, and that our bodies do a
good job of eliminating it. True. none of
these sites ask the silly little question,
“what happens to aluminum nano-particles
that are injected intra-muscularly”?

Although Carlin was letting loose some truths, he was still misdirecting here and there. For example he blames the American people for the state of the schools, and that our spooky leaders come from the same schools we attend. Negative, we have found out over and over again these manor born spooks mostly attend schools that were founded around the same time the country was.

Carlin is in my top 5 comedians and speaks much truth but he also ridicules and berates his audience and the public at large. He was also very successful considering his subject material. But the way he delivered solid truth was his USP. No one did it quite as well as he did.

Weird, I looked for CCleaner, which has always been on my screen. Gone. Gone from applications as well, though the downloader was still there. Wouldn’t download because it said my system wasn’t compatible. So I went online and redownloaded it. Being on a Mac, I had to unlock, drag it in, and relock. Finally, the thing installed and ran. It cleaned almost a gigabyte of crap. 15,ooo files. How is that possible?

The expert photographers were correct in showing that the aperture that was set on the moon cameras would not be able to take pictures of stars…. but they were talking about apertures of someone who was going to take a picture of stars”on the earth”.

My theory is that if you were”really on the moon” the stars would be so bright that we would at least see something?

Something crosses my mind about the lack of stars in the pictures, based on what was said by those photgraphers about light reflection. They were saying that becuase there is no atmosphere that light doesn’t bounce back and brighten the shadows, so reflectors must have been used or studio lights. That sounded very logical to me, but I don’t know if its accurate becuase I am unsure if the Moon has much or a charge field, and assume if it doeas that b-photons could cause light to “bend” due to impacts with light photons.
But if thats not possible, and indeed there is no “light noise” at all due to lack of atmosphere I am not sure why we get total blackness from the direction of space. I would have thought even with fairly high shutter speeds we would get something, given there are some fairly bright stars up there, but we don’t even get a haze, just perfect blackness, as if the sky (or studio) had been cropped out.

We don’t see the stars during the day on Earth becuase we are getting so much “light noise” with it bouncing around from the Sun off the atmosphere. We can still see the moon during the day on dull days I assume becuase it reflects so much light we can pick it up thorugh the noise.

This doesn’t sit well with what they were saying about the moon having very low reflectivity. On full moon nights it feels almost like daylight sometimes.

Anyway I am thinking if the light doesn’t bounce around much at the moon surface and only travels in one straight line from sun to surface, what light exactly is preventing the stars from being seen due to interference ? Surely if no light is bouncing around to swamp light from stars we should see something even at low shutter speed.

Also if I am wrong about that when the sun is in shot, and it does obscure the stars, are there any pictures where the sun is behind the camera. In those wouldn’t the light, rather than bounce of the atmosphere as on Earth, just keep going right off into space without hitting the film plate, and therefore wouldn’t the moon’s sky be ablaze with stars to camera and naked eye ?

I have the photography skills of Mr Magoo during a particularly bad bout of conjunctivitis so I think this is more about my ignorance of how film works than spotting any inconsistencies in the narratives, but can anybody educate me and dispel the confusion ?

Having said all this I am not suggesting the landings were real. For me the obvious winners were the massive temperature variations which would have destroyed the film and if the film rolls could even have survived the Van Allen Belt (has Miles written on the VA belt – I must have a search), and the body language of the astonauts at that news conference – simply frightening how mentally disturbed they appeared. In fact I was re convinced by every word and sentence throught the film lol.

at graham – “Surely if no light is bouncing around
to swamp light from stars we should see something
at low shutter speeds”
see russell taylors thorough explanation at 12:37,
even one of the professional photographers gives
very clear info on this. i can confirm by my own
moon photography that these analyses are spot
on. no way to get any glimmers from space on
the film they used at 1/250 second.

“reflectors must have been used or studio lights…
but I don’t know if its accurate”
see the mythbusters failed attempt to disprove
this at 3:05 in the video, followed at 3:07 with
comparisons of shadowed areas not filled in with
extra light (large rock shadows, etc.), to the
obviously brightened scenes of the astro near
and climbing into the module. and that scene is
complete with a nearby light source glinting
on many surfaces (boots, etc.).

They said it was a red herring because the exposure time would have to be set much longer, though Tony might have a point about star brightness on the moon. Still, as I pointed out, that is no excuse for why they did not attempt to take pictures of the stars at all by simply changing their exposure time.

I dont know anything about apertures and exposure times but i don’t buy any of it for a second. You would see something whether it be a blur or a twinkle but to see jet black whilst everything else is in perfect focus is just utter dog shit… Ha ha ha

Daniel:
I have mentioned this in a previous post. There are two main measures of brightness in astronomy. Apparent brightness and absolute brightness. The specific star may be massive and incredibly bright (absolute brightness) but it might be a thousand light years away and so appear very tiny, and using the inverse square law the brightness (apparent) you see would have fallen to a very feeble level. Almost all stars have low apparent brightness and compared to the brightness of the Moon are virtually nothing.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_magnitude

The aperture used on the Moon would have been the same as it would for a sunlit daytime scene on Earth. From memory they had two settings, one for looking toward the Sun and one for looking away from the Sun. The one looking toward would probably be around two stops less to help cut down on the glare. The shutter speed I believe was fixed at around 1/250 sec. Using gloved hands they had a simple lever to change between open or closed aperture settings. But the settings would be for a sunny day on Earth. Try setting your camera to an aperture of f/11 at 1/250 sec and try taking a photo of stars. You will fail! You need your aperture wide open, say f/1.8 and an extremely slow shutter speed of around 3 seconds. You might see 20 or 30 stars if the sky is dark enough. If you keep the shutter open for around 10 seconds you see far more stars but then, due to the rotation of the Earth you get stars beginning to make trails where the images become elongated. You have to fix the camera to an altazimuth drive to keep it pointed accurately to avoid the trails. Then you can expose for 30 seconds and get superb shots.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altazimuth_mount

You also need a fast film ISO 800 or higher because this will react to lower levels of light…it’s more sensitive. Digital ISO is the same as film. The bog standard (not special) film used on the Moon was allegedly ISO 200 but looking at the sharpness and contrast of the photo’s I would say it was almost certainly ISO 100. Then again, if everything were closer, with most photo’s taken on a tripod, then you could get away with ISO 200 (studio?).
To photograph the moon you need 1/250 sec at f/16 and ISO 100.
To photograph the Milky Way you need the darkest sky you can find, and a 10 second exposure (shutter speed), at the widest aperture you’ve got. f/2 is good, f/1.8 better and an ISO setting of 1600. But ISO 800 is fine for the brightest stars to recognise constellations.https://www.davemorrowphotography.com/p/tutorial-shooting-night-sky.html

So as Josh said, the lack of stars is not the issue. The issue is why have they never photographed the stars from the Moon. It would be simple to set the camera aperture and shutter inside the lander so on their next excursion outside, they could photograph the stars, or even have a different camera set up for that…..but they didn’t.

“And let’s not forget that they said that they didn’t “SEE” any stars with their eyes?”

They lied?

Planets. From Earth, there are usually only 4 that are highly visible and seem far brighter than stars (apparent brightness – to our eyes). Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Mercury just looks like a fairly bright star, while Uranus and Neptune look like faint stars.
The Apollo team were on the Earth facing side of the Moon. Those 4 planets follow the ecliptic plane. On the 20th July 1969 Saturn, Venus and Mercury were all close to the Sun and with the intensity of the Sun on the Moon (or in space), would have been invisible in the glare, even to the eye.http://www.stargazing.net/mas/planet4.htm

Jupiter and Mars were much farther away from the Sun but this would probably put them below the Moon’s horizon. This situation would hardly change while they were there. The Sun, along with Saturn, Venus and Mercury would stay in pretty much the same position in the sky for the astronauts during the whole mission. Of course, all this is meaningless because they were never there. But this doesn’t change basic laws of physics.

Photographic exposure explained.
Each f-stop i.e. f/2 f/2.8 f/4 f5.6 lets in twice as much light as the numbers get smaller. So moving the aperture setting from f/11 to f/8 doubles the amount of light.
Halving the shutter speed also lets in twice as much light.
The difference between shooting in sunlight, either on the Moon or the Earth, and trying to photograph stars against a black sky is huge.
Daylight on either Moon or Earth 1/250 sec at f11-f16.
Stars from either Moon or Earth 10 sec or more at f2 or greater if the lens will allow.
So f/16 to f/11 doubles the light, and f/11 to f/8 double it again. While f/8 to f/5.6 doubles it again and f/5.6 to f4 doubles it again. Do you see that with out changing the length of time the shutter is open, just widening the aperture of the lens alone lets in a vastly greater amount of light between a daylight landscape setting and a dark sky starry setting. Keep doubling until you reach the limit, say f/2, then do the same thing with shutter speeds. So from 1/250 sec to 1/125 sec you get twice the amount of light. You get the same doubling from 1/125 sec to 1/60 sec. Then double again from 1/60 sec to 1/30. Keep doing that until you get to 10 seconds and I think you’ll begin to see just how enormous the difference in light gathering is between a setting for a sun lit landscape and stars against a black sky.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

This will help you understand the vast difference in brightness I just explained. Between a sunlit landscape and stars we are talking thousands of times brighter.
Jupiter has a maximum magnitude of around -2.94 while the Sun is -27.
To keep it simple, the difference between mag -1 and mag -2 is 2.512 times the brightness. By comparison Sirius, the brightest star has a magnitude of -1.6 which means Jupiter, at it’s brightest is around 3.5 times brighter than the brightest star. This ratio isn’t going to change no matter where you are standing. So the planets wouldn’t be any easier to photograph from the Moon even if they were visible at the time of the alleged landings.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitude_%28astronomy%29

You are joking right?
Do you not have an iris in either of your eyes which closes in bright light and opens up in poor light? That is your eye adjusting it’s aperture. It does it automatically just like a modern camera set to ‘Auto’. Phones often have fixed apertures due to their tiny lenses and rely on infinitely variable shutter speeds and increasing the gain on the CCD.

That iris in your eye, when fully open in the dark, gives your eye a focal length of around f/2. I believe fully closed down to it’s smallest hole it reaches around f/16.
Almost the same as a standard SLR camera lens.

I did wonder if it was a tongue in cheek remark. I often tell the wife after misunderstanding something she told me….use more words. She talks like most people text and often just doesn’t get the point across. She doesn’t realise that often, using less words and being more brief, the message can be interpreted in different ways. Extra words and a fuller explanation make things less vague.
I’ve made the same mistake when posting in a hurry before leaving the house.

Yes, that video proves, well beyond reasonable doubt, that the photo’s and video were not shot on the Moon but on a studio set of some sort.

On the subject of early memories…. I remember my Italian grandfather in the house as we were watching the moon walks on TV and he was the only guy that was trying to tell everybody that he didn’t believe it!

And everybody including me thought he was just an ignorant Italian from Italy.

If you don’t know anything about photography, you can either choose not to opine upon the topic or just simply take your goddamn phone camera out at night and learn a thing about photography. It’s not that hard. Try it during the day, too. Photograph some shit. It’s really easy since by now everyone has decent cameras.

I mean, mine is better (Motorola Z4 with a 48-megapixel camera) but that doesn’t mean you have to suck at this. Even MINE can’t capture decent stars or the moon without manual settings. Without a LOT of tweaking. Phones are meant for quick portraiture and that’s it. You can find apps that change this but it’s hit or miss. In my case, I can buy a Motorola add-on with an ACTUAL zoom lens, and I just haven’t because it’s pricey but it’s still available.

If you don’t understand the stars from the moon in photography, you don’t understand them from the Earth either and you’re an idiot. Most people ARE idiots. So it’s forgiven.

I do not know much about photography but i am an expert in liars, gobshites and bullshit artists. I took 2 photos, from my rubbish phone, of the sky with cloud cover, light pollution and rain distorting the image. I took one photo focusing on the one star i could see and one photo focusing on the horizon but with the star in view. Both photos picked upon the fact that there was a star in the sky.

If you are sat on the moon, you are going to see trillions and fucking trillions of stars, planets, nebula, galactic core and whatever else. There is nothing you can do to a camera that will make all that go away apart from sticking the camera up your arse. Aperture or no aperture, shutter speed or no shutter speed. So those astrofarts with massive fat fingers can take PERFECT shots of each other with a camera bolted to the chests and manage to miss every fucking star in the galaxy.

I am sorry but anyone who buys into the camera cant take a photo of a star bollox is either a liar, a gobshite or a bullshit artist. If you qualify as all three, you get the added title of head-the-ball…

Daniel, others have pointed out already that both Russell and Jared both believe the moon landings were faked. That’s not the point. The point is making the argument with the best evidence. On the one side we have 4 professional photographers with decades of experience (5 if you also count the director of the documentary) plus Russell who has a lot of experience using film cameras (not sure what Jared’s experience is). All of them conclude the same thing: when set to that exposure time and aperture, the stars would not have been visible.

What this means is that the argument that some stars “must” have been visible in these pictures is a bad argument. It only leads to more doubt and uncertainty. What we want are decisive arguments. This is not one. All the debunkers need to do is pick the low-hanging fruit of our worst arguments, show why they are wrong (or cast sufficient doubt) and then they just dismiss all the other arguments as similarly weak.

Similarly weak is your ‘debunking’ of their argument with your cell phone. What you were able to capture on your modern digital cell phone in automatic mode simply doesn’t tell us anything about the situation on the moon or what a film camera is capable of. For one thing, the pictures were allegedly taken during the moon equivalent of daytime, not nighttime. Of course you can’t really go out during the day on Earth and try to take a picture of the stars, since their light is drowned out by the blue light of the sky. And then of course there is the problem of comparing a CCD sensor to ISO 100/200 film. There simply is no way to compare or to prove for yourself that those cameras really could have picked up stars under those conditions. Admittedly, we don’t know for sure. And, hey, you know what? Maybe you’re right. But why stand on that claim when there is so much more solid ground to stand on?

good one, russell. i was thinking to make
a slightly more gentle reply earlier today,
something to the effect of “please go back
and read russell’s rather exhaustive
treatises on this subject just above”.

Im not blackwashing anything.. i am exposing russell taylor and jared magneson as extensions of the tokarski project… They are using the “baffle em with bullshit” tactic to claim the lunar missions were real… They are morons and no one else has pulled them up on it… Just look at how many comments they gave posted… It ends now

to daniel, said gently. you have misunderstood
russell’s posts, 180 degrees. everything he has
posted re: american moon is to affirm that they
did not go to the moon. that is what all his
photography discourses have been about.
several times in his posts he flat-out said they
never went to the moon, and he gave evidence,
photographically. actually reading his posts
would tell you that. check out the last
paragraph of his feb 16 @12:37 one. read it,
and then see his last words there “but they
didn’t,”, which is to emphasize that they
NEVER went to the moon.

There are two viewpoints to the question of why are there no stars in the NASA space TV/photo images.

1) The whole thing was faked and they couldn’t be arsed faking the stars
2) The shutter/aperture settings were not conducive to taking images of stars on any of the missions.

The problem with the debunking explanation is that it requires there to be a NASA space mission in the first place in order for the shutter/aperture issue to exist. If there were no lunar missions, the Jared and Russell have no explaining to do. Their entire argument is centred around what NASA said about their camera setup and it is implied within their argument that the cameras were really in space and the images are real. Which they are demonstrably not.

The only images of stars, we can find, are images from earth and images from hubble. If you are in space, the only thing you can see are stars.

1/ Is about the validity of the Apollo missions.
2/ Is about photography and whether or not an astronaut would be able, were he/she on the moon, to take pictures of stars.

Answer to one. The evidence they didn’t go is overwhelming.
Answer to two. They could, if they were on the moon, take fantastic photo’s of the stars, but they didn’t, which is more evidence they didn’t go. The arguments the believers use is that they were too busy and didn’t have time (over that many missions?).
Due to gloved hands the cameras were set – admitted by Hasselblad – to take photo’s in sunlight, adjustment being impossibly difficult; it being daylight all the time.
Would the Hasselblad technicians know whether or not their cameras were used on the moon? How could they know? Well, considering they only supplied standard film – again admitted by Hasselblad – it is my opinion that they must have known the resulting photo’s were not taken on the moon, simply due to them showing no radiation damage, or receiving any feedback from NASA about damage from extreme heat or cold. A technician with even the slightest curiosity would ask why the photo’s – and video – from Apollo 11 were so terrible but later missions showed far better photo’s yet still using standard film and the same cameras.
Maybe they were simply paid to keep schtum? Or if they spoke out would be arrested on a rape charge, losing their career and family? There are many reasons why anyone in the know would stay silent.
What do you think would have happened to Armstrong – the mentally weakest character – if he spilled the beans? He would be rushed into a mental hospital. The breaking news story would probably be that he had a nervous breakdown due to the stress and his medication made him hallucinate. Perfect cover up no? Who would dare speak out after seeing that? Come to think of it, isn’t that why the 3 astronauts died in a fire in Apollo 1? The story is that one of the crew wasn’t happy with the hoax and was thinking of going public with the story? After witnessing that, again, who would dare speak out?

Enki:

Were you using a Hasselblad medium format camera loaded with standard ISO 200 Kodak film from the late 1960s, set to f/11 at 1/250 sec, on the moon, in daylight?
Or were you using a modern smart phone, with a relatively high gain CCD (which have amazing low light abilities, all automatic, and without needing film), at night, on your back yard?
If it was the latter then your test was a complete waste of your time. You proved nothing.

None of my phone cameras have been capable of taking photo’s of stars until my latest one which is a OnePlus 6T. It can make a poorly lit street scene at night look like the picture was taken in daylight. Seriously amazing. Not tried it with stars yet. I’ll try that the next clear sky we get and I’ll get back to you.

Note: For anyone remotely interested in photographing stars with a cell-phone. If you do have a digital phone capable of sensing that a star is there and then faking the image, then something useful to remember is that cell-phones use wide angle lenses; helps with keeping the image sharp; get’s more people into a group shot without anyone ending up being arrested for accidentally touching a woke feminist; and also means you can expose for about 20 seconds without noticeable star trails. Halve the focal length, double the angle – double the exposure time, piece of cake. The stars will still look like pinpricks because the images we receive on Earth are so tiny, and the camera is faking it anyway (a bit like the feminist) hehehe!

@Russell
I read here some contradictory statements about the possibility of taking pictures of the stars. I wanted to test myself. I don’t think I wasted my time. I think it is good to personally test everything I can personally test.

That’s ok Enki, I was just describing the fact that the conditions on the Moon are not so different to those here on Earth as far as taking photo’s in daylight are concerned, but you can see stars on the Moon in daylight because there’s no blue glowing atmosphere to mask them. The exposure in daylight for the lunar landscape would be exactly the same as it would for a sunlit landscape here on Earth.
The problem I pointed out, is that the difference between your modern digital phone camera and a 1960s film in a Hasselblad are a bus ride away from being similar. Any phone from the last few years should be capable (maybe not on full auto settings) of taking reasonable pictures of the night sky and using manual over-ride should capture the Milky Way with a dark enough sky. Go back 10 years and my Nokia N8 would capture maybe 6 of the very brightest ones if I was lucky or a planet and out on the moors with a dark sky. I thought you were comparing what your digital phone camera can capture with the alleged Moon pictures. But you can’t compare them because the format is so very different. I would hazard a guess that one of the latest phone cameras could take excellent pictures from space or on the Moon. You get rid of pollution and the atmosphere which has to improve things. I’ll let you know what results I get from my phone cam cos I am interested to see just how well it can do.

The folllowing is not aimed at you Enki….I respect you.

I will reiterate for anyone who refuses to understand, if the astronuts were actually on the Moon and wanted to take a photo of the stars they had the equipment to do it. There, I’ve said it in plain English, my own mother tongue, but I guess someone out there will try and twist my words to make it seem I said something else. I will add, if they were there, where are the star photo’s?
There now….satisfied?
Making up stuff I didn’t say will not gain anyone any friends here I’m afraid. People here are far too astute to fall for those slimy tricks.

An astronut in the IST took a long exposure of the Milky Way “allegedly” which looked very nice indeed. Maybe he didn’t. Maybe it’s another fake. But all I am interested in is sifting the bullshit from the truth. So I use my knowledge to pick out the contradictions, the impossibilities, the errors, and come to conclusions based on my analysis.
What is it my wife always tells me? “Oh! Stop analysing things…you don’t need to analyse everything.”
Then she goes and makes statements based on her own analysis of something.
Human nature to analyse and make decisions based on that analysis. It’s why we are so successful as a species.

And I QUOTE (myself):
“Even MINE can’t capture decent stars or the moon without manual settings. Without a LOT of tweaking. Phones are meant for quick portraiture and that’s it.”

Nowhere did I say you can’t take pics of the night sky and see stars and the moon. Sirius and Bellatrix, Jupiter and Saturn show up best, but you can get lots of stars on a clear night if you tripod-up and tweak your settings a bit.

Here’s one I took the other night, raw 48MP/quad-processed to 12:

And here’s the next one I shot, using Owl mode:

You can clearly see two stars NE of the moon in both, but in the Owl shot it’s much better. The object on the far left may have been a plane or something, since it’s not in the same place in both. But the point is that even with a very nice phone camera, it’s hard to take decent pics. I purposely chose these two here to show that the bright-ass moon washes out a LOT of stars, and the clouds too. That’s how exposure works, is what I believe Russell and I were talking about. Notice how vast the moon’s halo is in the first image, compared to the second? Those ancient Hasselbads would have been much, much worse at this to begin with. They didn’t have any hardware or software to help out, nor a killer CCD. We can be accurate in our assessments without compromising them.

Neither of those were tweaked in PhotoShop, just straight from my stupid phone, which has pretty much the best camera on any phone ever, going by specs alone. That’s why I chose it, and it was cheap too.

Nowhere did I say I believed in the moon landing, Apollo, or anything that would support Daniel’s claims. Sorry bro, you’re barkin’ up the wrong tree here.

It’s a clear sky here so I went out in my little backyard to test with some phones. I have a lot of ambient light. The street lighting pole it’s about 8 meters from the place I took the pictures. I took the pictures holding the phones in my hands. I’ve made no special settings, using the phones defaults.
Test 1 – Samsung Young (“toy” phone); 3.15 MP camera => no stars in the pictures.
Test 2 – Samsung S7; 12 MP, f/1.7, 26mm (wide), 1/2.55″ => the stars can be clearly seen in the pictures.
Test 3 – Samsung S10e; 12 MP, f/1.5-2.4, 26mm (wide), 1/2.55″ => the stars can be clearly seen in the pictures. I swiched the phone in “night mode” => the tiniest stars can be seen in the pictures.

I am standing on very solid ground when i state that all manned space missions were faked and every piece of evidence that they present to us is fake. This is a maxim of physics… No one can deny this simple fact (except a moron).

I posted a 4 hour documentary exhaustingly proving all the images, were faked and i just found that despite all their efforts, the lack of stars in space to be a very funny.

Jared claimed he needed to manually adjust his 40MP camera to even get a star or even the moon to show up and all i did was prove he is a liar by taking a photo of a star with an 8MP camera. (on a rainy, cloudy night in a city centre with maximum light pollution) without any effort whatsoever.

Russel Taylors whole argument relies on the NASAs images to be real images from the surface of the moon. They are not and his argument is rendered utter dog shit.

They would be better off inserting caution into their claims as nobody has ever taken a photo from space. But alas!!

It must be remembered that we are talking about video footage and camera footage both inside and outside the space ship on every space mission has not managed to pick up the feintest trace of a star in over 50 years. Yet my piece of shit phone can pick one up in 2 seconds… That is the problem with bullshit, it just doesnt make sense!!!

I think you just like to manufacture pointless arguments, because that’s all you’ve done so far. You’re trolling! Baiting people to waste their time arguing with you by making inaccurate and misleading accusations, using a perfectly respectable and accurate video presentation to lean on for some sort of crutch to hold up your empty arguments.
You are ticking all the boxes in the list of identifiable traits of the common Troll.

I don’t know about dog shit but that’s what I’ll smell every time I see your name in future.

But like I’ve been trying to do, let’s just bypass the camera argument and ask the question…. “How come astronauts said that they didn’t SEE any stars”?

From the beginning of time man has looked up to the stars in animazement and if I were a astronaut I would be looking at the stars all the time and the guys would have to tell me to stop stargazing and concentrate on my work.

Also I would think that one of the agendas on the the moon would be to photograph the stars and therefore bring a special camera just for that…… But nooooooo that might be too complicated.

They had time to play golf ….and brought a giant fucken useless moonbuggy but nothing to photograph the stars? (rolling eyes)

I can’t find any reason at all that they would say that they didn’t see any stars because the human eye can adjust it’s aperture.

The ironic reason is that they weren’t lying when they said they didn’t see any stars because they never went to the moon…. so technically they weren’t lying!

Why couldn’t one of the mission landing sites land on the borderline of twilight between the light and dark side of the moon…. then they could use that useless buggy to drive to the darker side of the moon and check that out?

Keeping cool in the sun would be easier than trying to keep warm in that degree of cold. As soon as they stepped into the shadows their temperature would plummet. I don’t see how they could keep warm for long.

Note:
This in no way should have anyone believing that I think the Moon landings were real.
Just sayin!

Let’s drop the whole camera thing. It isn’t going anywhere. The bottom line is no one here is arguing we actually went to the Moon. Since we didn’t, what cameras can or cannot do on the Moon is a moot point.

So, two-hours of writing and poof down the plug hole!! Ok, I agree but just answer a couple of questions.

What exactly is a limited hang out?

In Dark Moon they state the Americans’ nuked…ha…the Van Allen belts. Is there any factual facts involved with that statement?

Also, in watching the Astronauts clicking away and seeing the actual camera used, I’m wondering how the film was advanced? The Hassle Blad was fully mechanical, film had to be advanced by hand. Did not see anything that looked like a motor dive on the camera and not sure at the time, one was even available and nothing was said about it in either video. I could be mistaken but I’ve used a ‘Blad more than a few times and it hasn’t changed much. The one used had an upgraded outer shell but everything else looked identical to what I’ve used.

Nor anyone else, apparently. Was surprised that neither video delved into any detail on the ‘Blad or broadcast cameras. I could write a book on why a Hassle Blad would never work, just based on how I spell it. It’s only redeeming quality under these circumstances is cost. It was the most expensive camera, lenses, backs etc. you could buy at the time.

Thanks for that info rolliekin. Seems sensible at first, but think of the batteries needed and how would they keep changing those while outside the lander? Another nail in the Apollo coffin.
Quick research.
Interesting that the older ones used 3V Ni-Cad batteries. Remember those useless tools? Later both 9V Alkaline and lithium were available. But how many Ni-Cads would they need? How long would 3V Ni-Cads last driving a Hassel. How efficient would the batteries be when subjected to those extreme temperatures? **Ni-Cads are notorious for falling voltage anywhere near freezing point, yet the cameras were supposed to be used for ages in the shadow of the LEM.
Broke the rules of physics every step of the way.
There are so many rules broken in the Apollo story, that video could be made again but end up 12hrs long, if they covered all the minor impossibilities. Is it possible for something to be minor if it is impossible?

** I used Ni-Cads in an outdoor weather machine sensor but as the night time temperatures dipped near freezing the sensor ceased working. Lithium cells replaced them which allegedly work down to -20C and the problem disappeared. Sensor still worked at -13C.

My definition of a limited hangout is basically a (fake) truther who tells you part of the truth but (deliberately) hides other truths at the same time. So a 9/11 truther who makes a 5 hour documentary and analyzes reams of evidence yet never lets on that the footage of the planes crashing into the towers was fake is a good example of a limited hangout. Basically they get you down the rabbit hole then keep you limited to “hanging out” at their level, not going further.

Of course it’s not always easy to discern what is the truth. Many people who believe Wood’s evidence of DEW’s on 9/11 will say that speaking only about a controlled demolition while failing to recognize DEW’s is a limited hangout. Others will say the same about the ‘mini-nuke’ theory. Simon Ballsack would tell us that failure to recognize that ALL of the footage on 9/11 was fake (including Wood’s) and that the buildings were empty is a limited hangout.

I really don’t want the discussion here to devolve into that kind of finger pointing. Some say that those alternative theories are advanced to splinter the truther community. Maybe. I have sometimes entertained the theory that all 3 methods of demolishing the buildings were in play on that day in order to play havoc later with those trying to figure out what happened. I think once you know that the whole things was an “inside job” and realize what this must mean about the ways in which the media are controlled and also governments of other countries, then the details don’t matter too much. Certainly not enough to fracture any solidarity we may have.

As for myself, having recognized that the footage and pictures from that day are highly unreliable, I simply decided not to investigate the other possibilities (DEW and mini nukes). It felt like a waste of time, but I respect others who have had their curiosity piqued and read up on them.

I have seen some of the weird evidence about the Northern California fires. I believe there is similar evidence about the fires in Australia. It would not surprise me if they were capable of that. It would also not surprise me if they faked those pictures.

That was some “update” 😉 Thanks for giving us an insight into your inner-sight, Mr Mathis. It is sobering to think just how far we’d be lost in the dark without your wizardly help. That’s some journey.

Your message went to moderation and I was tempted to trash it, truth be told. But I think responding to you head-on is better.

Why are you introducing topics for people to argue about? Haven’t we argued enough about what is fake and what is not when it comes to the space program? Was it not enough for you? What’s the point? Is this how you get your jollies? Some people just want to watch the world burn, I guess, but I don’t take kindly to you or anyone else reintroducing incendiary topics.

Furthermore, this is exactly the kind of thing I explicitly and clearly asked you to avoid: you bait people here with these kinds of questions without stating your own belief. Based on previous experience, I half expect that after tens of thousands of words have been typed furiously onto our keyboards, tempers have flared and contributors here have been worked up into a frenzy, you will tell us that, actually, you do believe that SpaceX can put people in the ISS or that “you don’t know” or “don’t have an opinion.” Just please stop it with this shit.

I don’t think we should argue about this and would prefer that people just ignore it. I don’t think it’s worth arguing over and I know from experience that are arguments aren’t going to go anywhere. To answer Rolleikin question: I don’t think there is a consensus here about the ISS, but IIRC from our previous merry-go-rounds I think the center position is that there actually is something up in orbit called the ISS, though there are huge doubts that it is actually manned or has all the capabilities that we are told. So there is the solution to your question: the ISS can be a real object without actually having any people in it. I don’t know why he couldn’t reason that out on his own.

Rolleikin, I enjoy most of your comments and have learned from them. You’ve contributed some solid content here. My favorite is the video showing what long hair really looks like in zero gravity. I was happy when you started commenting again, even if somewhat wary. I don’t believe I’ve ever trashed the content you’ve shared, though I haven’t always agreed with it. If you can find one post of yours I “trashed” only later to agree with, I will eat my hat. I have however taken strong exception to the frequently incendiary and sometimes disingenuous way in which you engage in discussion.

RE: my being “incendiary”
As far as I can see the only persons here who has been “ignited” by my posts are you and a couple of very rude characters who seldom post here anymore and who don’t seem to like anybody who doesn’t worship them. Is it really my “incendiary” manner or are you just being overly flammable?

You, Josh, have called me names, implied I was a spook, helped condemn me because I once posted at fakeologist (when you and others here have also posted at similar sites), falsely criticized me for failing to express my opinions (when you know damn well what my opinions are), “warned” others against replying to my shockingly incendiary (not) posts and harped about various other alleged imperfections in my character.

Have I done that to you, Josh? Have I called you a weasel? Have I called you a spook? Have I pestered you about the way you post or express yourself? I don’t think I have. I may be a bit of a wise ass at times but I think I have treated you a hell of a lot more courteously than you have treated me.

So, Josh, I’m sorry if I have offended you, but I believe most people here enjoy my contributions and you might notice that I am courteous to those who are courteous to me and I am rather snarky to those who are not.

“Is it really my “incendiary” manner or are you just being overly flammable?”

Yes, it really is about your manner. Call it whatever you want, but that’s what this is really about. I think anybody looking back at how I’ve treated you would be hard-pressed to describe the way I’ve treated you as flammable. If you’ve never had a reason to call me a weasel, perhaps it’s because I have never expressed myself in a weaselly way.

And no, you haven’t offended me. You’ve only given me a headache as I witnessed this fragile community being torn apart by your ‘innocent’ questions. I certainly never condemned you for posting at fakeologist, although I did not censor people who did, if you call that help. If I thought you were a spook, I would have banned you long ago. I have in fact defended you against people who wrote to me that I should.

And yes, you did express your opinions clearly and directly enough, as I had asked. I honestly and with zero sarcasm want you to know that I appreciate that. I hope you will keep doing that.

I won’t “argue” because all of you are well over my head. I learn from reading the back and forth. However, sceptist of history that I have become, suggests that maybe the astronuts walk through one door of a studio to another with an ISS mock up. I say this somewhat tongue in cheek and no provocation is intended.

I heard an interesting hypothesis that the Apollo missions were designed to distract attention away from the war crimes in Vietnam. Apollo 11 launch was the day after the Mai Lai massacre expose… If there is truth to this, then the press release of the massacres would have been planned a decade earlier… Who knows?

Based on thousands of pages of Miles’s papers, I’d have to believe that Mai Lai is also bogus, just based on the media frenzy surrounding it. Not saying massacres didn’t happen, as a good friend was Navy Seals in Nam and he had the pictures to prove it—from Cambodia. Where we never were.

Besides, in 1959, the French were still getting their proverbial asses kicked in Nam. The US hadn’t stuck their pushy noses into the fray, quite yet, other than as “advisors.”

Basically to me now, everything historical is false until proven, unequivocally without a doubt, otherwise.

History now has no point. My only hope for learning is science. God help me!!

Mai Lai was a manufactured event. If they didn’t want people to know about it, then they wouldn’t have put it in the news!

I’m still not sure what the point of the Apollo hoax was. Siphoning money from the Treasury doesn’t explain it or any other hoaxes – they can just steal money without an elaborate hoax. It’s not like the media will report it anyway.

“Twenty-six soldiers were charged with criminal offenses, but only Lieutenant William Calley Jr., a platoon leader in C Company, was convicted. Found guilty of killing 22 villagers, he was originally given a life sentence, but served only three and a half years under house arrest.”

So, basically they all got off. The only “punishment” was house arrest for Calley which means they just sent him home.

Have you seen this?

I suspect there were many such incidents but they used Mai Lai as a way to make it seem like there was only one and that justice was served for it.

Re Video: Have heard many anecdotal stories from Nam of similar nature from friends, colleagues and acquaintances—including disillusionment from career soldiers. It would take a tome of typing to fully flesh out all the events leading out of WWII into the space race and Viet Nam to begin to decipher why Viet Nam and the Moon Hoax were needed/wanted. World wars were big, messy and events were difficult and costly to control. Smaller, messier conflicts made more and more sense. Cold wars instead of hot ones and races between the “combatants,” were vastly more profitable, replete with much more elaborate hot button issues.

The Moon hoax and Nam were actually, in my eyes, one in the same hoax. What better way was there to infuse the military, industrial complex, than with the space race for new, exotic weapons and keep endless wars making huge profits? Add to the war cause, an invisible enemy, unidentifiable from the civil population and confusion reigns supreme.

They built a framework, based on what they had learned from centuries of hoaxed history that was now set up and extremely versatile and expandable. Hollywood, newspapers, magazines, literature, art, et al were completely owned by the mid 60s under the guise of patriotism and national security. They didn’t have to suck the from the treasury—they owned it, politicians, all forms of communications, the banks, financial institutes etc., etc. But more importantly, that instant gratification vessel, television, was their new show stopper and mind controller on multi-levels and in every home. They owned that show as well.

Could it be that Vietnam war was distraction from the Apollo program failure?

Or that they were both pre-planned as a coupled unit of “Chaos” (left hook – right hook)?

Vietnam war was joint USSR – USA production anyway (think Gemini), or better said: Security Council of the UN production.
People (globally) were given “universal dreams” of technological future through propaganda from 1930’s up to 1950’s and then they were served sobering reality (war and more war, nothing but the war).
Pump’-’em-up and than burst the bubble, rob them of their emotional potential and take their money. Like in Stock exchange

Star Trek writers had an enthusiasm for the number 47. As a result, 47, its reverse 74, its multiples, or combinations of 47 occur in a large number of episodes of the program and its spin-offs Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, and Star Trek: Enterprise, usually in the form of dialogue, on-screen labels, or computer screens.

The usage of 47 can be traced back to Joe Menosky, who wrote for both The Next Generation and Voyager and graduated from Pomona College, where 47 is kind of a big deal. It even has its own society. However, with this in mind, 47 is used primarily as an inside joke and therefore kind of thrown in randomly wherever there’s room.

If I had a choice between going to outer space with all the hair spray fumes floating around or windsurfing the wonderful waves in Hawaii with a beautiful girl waiting for me back on the beach….. guess which one what I would choose?

Back in my Hollywood days I once had an interview at Paramount for a teeny part on ST but I didn’t get it. I didn’t look alien enough, I guess. That’s as close as I got to being immortalized within the Trek universe. I stopped watching after that. (But, they were nice about it.)

Well, I had a pleasant surprise today. A business colleague mentioned to me that he didn’t believe the Apollo moon missions were legit. I knew he was aware of some media fakery like the fake shootings but I didn’t know how far his awareness went.

Anyway, we had a nice talk about Apollo and space fakery in general and it turns out he is quite aware of a number of things we talk about here. He is a graphic artist too and is hip to the CGI aspect as well and seems familiar with physics too. Nice to have a new friend to discuss this stuff with.

He had become quite disheartened in trying to discuss this with others who just refused to accept that they’re being lied to about various things. I told him I gave up trying to convince the Apollo believers a long time ago and now only talk about it with people who demonstrate they are at least a little bit aware of it. He seemed to like that.

I found this image on the NASA’s Artemis Project site. Artemis is the one that is supposed to take astronauts to Mars in 2024. I didn’t find an exact explanation of this hardware but I presume it is the lower stage of the Artemis SLS (Space Launch System) which NASA calls “the most powerful rocket in the world.”

Clicking on the image should display it full size. If it doesn’t, you can find larger versions via image search web sites.

This is a pretty good fake in my opinion but I did manage to find what I believe are actual errors in this picture — some shadow errors.

First, note the shadow of the man in the wide brim hat. Shouldn’t his wide brim hat be casting a shadow too? I don’t see it.

And, then there’s this guy who is looking back almost towards the camera. There should be a definite shadow of his head cast on his shoulder but there is none there.

There are other shadow goofs. You should look at the full size version of this picture to see them. The light pole beside the hangar on its left side should be casting a shadow onto the hangar but it isn’t. I also don’t see a shadow for the pole on the extreme left side of the photo. And, beneath the rocket, in the distance there is a pillar rising from the water that casts no shadow.

Compare the focus on the insides of that hangar in the background with the people in front of it. The focal distance of the people in front of it appear to be at the same distance as the very backend of the hangar on the left. Everyone around the vehicles is blurrier than the vehicles are. That thing in the water you pointed out looks like it was just pasted in. Also the grass in the foreground is blurrier than the lift and rocket tube behind it.

You can pretty much tell how the focus should look on everything by looking at the grass in the foreground and the back of the warehouse in the background. The back of the rocket is the only part that looks entirely in focus. The focal plane is so tight the grass ten feet away in the foreground appears blurry. It’s as blurry as the ground around the vehicles closer to the front of the tube in the midground. You can compare the ground in the foreground to the ground in the background and midground and see the same thing.

Now compare the ground directly underneath the wheels to the wheels themselves. Do the same with the guy next to them and the ground underneath his boots. It looks like the entire original photo was shot out of focus with a wide focal plane, and the rocket tube was shot with the focus on the back of it with a shorter focal plane (and even a higher res), and the two photos were merged, then the people were added in.

Zoomed out that rocket doesn’t look right either, as if it was originally photographed somewhere else and pasted in or even a render. The colors on it are too bright, as well as that blue scaffolding thing in the background below it. It’s obvious when you zoom out. The color temperature of the light on the giant tube looks different than what’s hitting the rest of the parking lot (with pasted in people who were either outdoors or under sun-light color temperature lighting when they were photographed).

Finally look at the part of the lift gear on the rocket where the guy is. Zoom in past the max and look at that power box with the wires going into it. One wire going upwards looks pixelated and completely out of place with any other similar lines in the picture, and the box itself looks either pasted in or rendered. You can notice the worker is blurrier than the pipe running along the bottom of tube above and beyond him, though the focus being on the back of the tube should put him further into focus. Concentrating on that pipe reveals it isn’t really there in the picture at all, as well as the blue scaffolding behind it. It’s all a composite.

My verdict is the object is a composite of unassembled pieces mixed with graphic renders, or really good graphic renders mixed with poorer quality ones.

I think you nailed it Rolleikin, it’s a fraud. Possibly at least 3 photos used, background, blow-up of a small model rocket, and one or more photos of people to give , to my eye anyway, the false impression of a large event. I wonder how many billion dollars the tax payer will be billed for a $100,000 non-working model rocket?

I must warn you that I have a fire extinguisher at the ready and my motorcycle is warmed up with the key in the ignition….

I’ve looked at the photo’s and can’t see any problems, other than compression artefacts. Whenever a compression algorithm is used to shrink the file size and/or resolution of an image, there is invariably some distortion, most easily see in the usual places such as straight edges against a bright sky, or any edge where there is a close match of colour and level of detail. This often causes the dreaded worms in photographs, often called “mosquito noise” by videographers. Something one always has to be careful of when (?) photoshopping. But it isn’t just photoshopping that causes these worms and other tiny distortions of image details. Whenever a picture is compressed there are minuscule detail changes all over the place, if you look hard enough and know what to look for.
So I’m not happy with considering an image as photoshopped unless there are serious errors; human errors; obvious errors. Missing shadows and different brightness of highlights in the same light source for instance, the kind of errors which Miles always spots when proving that people have been pasted into pictures. Worms around the edges are seen all the time in jpeg compression, which is why I very rarely use it. The eye can pick up on edge detail anomalies far easier than we give it credit for. All instinctive, from the days when we hunted brindled animals in a dense forest of brindled trees. We became good at spotting slight differences in reflections and edges and colour details at great distances. We had to spot the grazing deer before it spotted us or our families starved. Our subconscious still has those abilities to pick out anomalies.
Dither can cause many oddities without compression, just by two electronic devices trying to reproduce the same image and making mistakes. For instance when taking an image from your camera and expecting your computer screen to do a perfect job of reproducing it. For starters, most computer monitors cannot possibly show the full resolution of a photo with dimensions of 5568 x 3712. I use a 23 inch monitor with eye to screen distance around 24 inches using a resolution of 1920 x 1080 px which I find comfortable.
My wife uses a 42 inch TV monitor at a viewing distance of around 8-10 feet but the screen has the same resolution as my computer screen – 1920 x 1080 – so even that monster monitor cannot possibly show the full resolution of that image.
So not only has the original photo been compressed using lossy compression, but our monitors have then compressed the image still further so it will fit the screens.

If you right click on the biggest image the web address lists it as a jpeg so it has been compressed from a much larger file size.

Love a good photo fakery test. Dunno on this one. Russell Taylor has hit on some key points with the issues of digital imagery. Compression is always a bottomline problem and any image uploaded to the web is going to be considerably more compressed than one directly uploaded from camera to a computer. We’re talking 72–96 ppi on the web, maybe 144 ppi. Shoot and download a RAW file for comparison between the two. And yes, unless you’re uploading to a UHD monitor, the smaller res of a monitor won’t do the image the justice it deserves at RAW.

In reality, this image has been shot in bright sunlight yet the only part of the scene in focus is the back (engines) of the rocket and moving slightly forward from there. The rockets themselves look too saturated. Bright sunlight should have more in focus using a larger aperture, unless the image was exposed for the back, in which case, the photographer was hired by Rocketdyn, not NASA. There are other issues with focus and shadows. It is possible that light reflecting off the rocket could affect the shadows of those standing near it, thereby creating a somewhat back-lighting of them. How much, I’m not sure, wasn’t at the shoot.

The real issues beyond compression, exposure and focus and what first jumped out to me was—that not a single person on the ground is looking at this huge rocket. They’re all either in conversation or walking away, like they are totally unaware of the huge tube sitting next to them. That looks contrived but cannot say they were ‘shopped in. However, if you follow the line of the rocket at top top, from back to front, there is an issue. Blow it up as much as you can, follow the line of the top and the clouds will be cut early. In other words, there is a blue line that cuts off the clouds from touching the rocket. Not noticeable unless blown up. Some areas work, others do not.

I mean it’s possible the clouds were added and the back end of the rocket’s exposure was enhanced. The clouds could be rendered because the cutouts below the rocket seem to show the background correctly. The shadows are a bit screwy but again the rocket reflections could change the light source. Tough to say “photoshop” but then again, any image being used in print, broadcast or for a monitor, would have first been opened in PS or some photo-editing software and is, in essence, photoshopped or manipulated. How much depends on clients’ needs and money exchanging hands.

But putting Russell in his place—it seems a tad ridiculous to have the motorcycle warming up and therefore, running and in first gear at the same time for a quick getaway. Odds say the motorbike would already have left him behind.

Hard to believe they are going ahead with this farce, but I look forward to it. Due to the usual overruns, it won’t happen until years later, and hopefully by then they will have perfected their CGI. So sometime around 2028ish we will have a second fake Moon landing, but this one will all be CGI. Curious how they will deal with the Van Allen Belts and many other problems, since it is sort of difficult to delete the VAB with CGI. Most of the problems outlined in American Moon can’t be answered by CGI or other contemporary tech. So I predict the next fake Moon landing will be even easier to tear up than the last one.

I think one major reason they haven’t just CGI-ed a new moon hoax right now is the direct ROI. For the cost of convincing CGI, they likely keep coming back to the fact that movies and shows still make a lot more, quicker money than their hoaxes will, since nobody is PAYING directly for the hoax. I mean, no consumers are. NASA won’t charge tickets. And most people really don’t give a shit about the moon itself.

The Martian:
Budget $108 million
Box office $630.2 million

Moon (2009):
Budget $5 million
Box Office $9,760,104

Sure, “The Martian” had Matt Damon but “Moon” had Sam Rockwell AND Kevin Spacey, and was a pretty amazing film. I mean, it was a psych thriller and “The Martian” was just an outright prop piece – but one was still far sexier to the public. And that’s if we believe those numbers at all, which I’m inclined not to. I didn’t pay for either and wouldn’t. I’m not gonna pay someone to lie to me. But lots of people still consider this stuff art so I suppose that’s their prerogative if they want to pay Jewish actors to act like non-Jewish actors or whatever.

I think “Moon” was kind of a “probe” or test for a fresh hoax, and since nobody was buying even the fake thing they decided to hold off on the REALLY fake thing.

Another point being that it would evidently only cost about $5 million to do a new fake. The CGI in “Moon” was pretty much flawless if I recall. The physics and logical flaws, not so much.

@ Miles
I assume that PTB are planing for the Moon mission to be exposed as hoax this time around. One consequence of this planned fiasco will be “revelation” of original Moon landing fakery to the public. In that regard “American Moon” is a good preparatory scenario for controlled “demolition” of 60 years old myth. In this scenario (questions asked by documentary) none of the families are to be exposed for their involvement, and only just a few mega corporations will be blamed (think Boeing that is already spiraling down).
And after that new reality sinks in (from 2040’s on), they (PTB) will be asking for new public money injections. This time they will be promising to new generations “real” space travel research achievements. And in in 2061 some (Spencer Ball) POTUS will come out, saying: “We will go to the Moon, not because we went there before, but because the public demands it …”
Bitchute (Newbury, created 2016) is based 5 miles from 77th Cyber Brigade (Hermitage, created January 2015).

I don’t intend to run this into the ground but I think I should point out that there are other errors in these photos – content errors – that spell photo fakery no matter how well they cut and paste these photo montages.

For example, in this photo (again, clicking on it should display it full size):

Anyone who has worked in industrial or construction environments could tell you what is wrong with this picture: Not one person is wearing a hard hat – even a couple of people working inside or very close to the scaffolding. You just don’t walk into a workplace like this and see everybody walking around without a hardhat on. This is clearly an OSHA violation which is highly unlikely that a multi-billion dollar agency like NASA would flout in its publicity photos. And, even less likely that so many morons would risk serious injury or death by not wearing one in an environment where falling objects and head injuries are possible.

According to OSHA:
“When employees are exposed to the possibility of head injuries, hard hats shall be worn.”

Apart from that, if you look closely at the people in the picture you will see things that just don’t look right. Individually the people may appear OK but they just don’t look like they were all in the same place when the photo was taken.

“Thus, it is the responsibility of the employer, prior to the OSHA inspection, to evaluate with good judgement the head injury hazards of the specific situations and activities in which he may involve his employees, and decide whether hard hats are needed to be worn.”

“I’ve looked at the photo’s and can’t see any problems, other than compression artefacts.”

Maybe you missed that bit?

I could explain the difficulties that a camera CCD encounters when trying to capture detail on a yellow high-vis jacket lit by a blue sky at 40 feet away. I could explain why the shadows don’t show the hat brim and why they also don’t show the mans body shape either but you know what….it’s pointless, because you’ll find some detail in my explanation to exploit to your advantage, and make it seem like I agree with you.
I mean, just look at the terrible pixelated portion of the picture you presented, with the pretext that there is no shadow visible. The guy looks like he’s a Minecraft figure. How is a CCD supposed to recognise the shadow line with that resolution? How would you be able to see it if it were there?
Look at the level of chromatic aberration. Crap lens, crap image.

“I could explain the difficulties that a camera CCD encounters when trying to capture detail on a yellow high-vis jacket lit by a blue sky at 40 feet away. I could explain why the shadows don’t show the hat brim and why they also don’t show the mans body shape either but you know what….it’s pointless, because you’ll find some detail in my explanation to exploit to your advantage, and make it seem like I agree with you.”

If the space probes are real, how are their vehicles different than the man mission vehicles we know never made it out of lower earth orbit. The reason why I ask this question is the Van Allen belts would affect electronics as well as humans. What precautions did NASA take on their probe vehicles (for example, thickness of spacecraft exterior walls to prevent radiation penetration) that obviously were not utilized on the manned missions since we know they were faked? Curious also if any of the commenters here would know how communication with a probe in space would be affected by the Van Allen belts.

The belts have high energy particles zooming around which can damage electronics and living cells but I don’t think they would affect any radio waves passing through. For the receiver to pick up interference those particles would have to hit the receiver. They wouldn’t prevent transmission. To radio waves the Moon is just over 1 second away. The time spent passing through the belts is measured in milliseconds.
I can only guess without researching this, that the components are protected by being robustly built, with lots of voltage spike suppressors. I suppose it’s better to adapt the circuitry than try and stop the particles.

I am a layman when it comes to the level of comprehension of the contributors here. Assuming the probes are real and the NASA photographs of space were not taken from lower earth orbit, could NASA have two separate divisions, one real for the probes, the other, an illusion for fake man missions? Or, as Miles has demonstrated many times, is it a third option of a complete farce?

It’s probably all fake. I don’t think the pictures of equipment and launches are fake, though.

I’ve been to a Space Shuttle launch in the ‘VIP guests’ section (my uncle’s friend’s wife worked as a NASA PR person for ~30 years and got us the tickets). I even met some really short German astronaut, a guy that went to the moon (Alan Bean, I think), and all the astronauts allegedly on that flight.

I wish I knew it was fake at the time. Kind of disappointing that Bean lied straight to my 10-year-old face about the moon. He seemed like a nice guy, which is probably why they chose him.

Anyway, they probably launched something into the sky that night, but it was dead quiet during the launch. I thought that was weird since we were only 3 miles away. They also made us leave immediately after liftoff because the smoke is toxic. Of course, you can’t just drive to the VIP section. NASA shuttles you to this area on a bus.

NASA was also selling ice cream for $7. It wasn’t even fancy NASA ice cream. Just normal ice cream you’d find at a gas station. And it wasn’t even that cold…

There is a comment below this video on YouTube from a former USAF man who said there was an Atlas rocket on display outside the Air Force Museum and they had it hooked up to an air compressor to keep it inflated. One day the compressor failed and the rocket collapsed just like this one.

That’s one of the balloon tank atlas rockets that were based on bossart’s monocoque design. I reckon all of the heavy lift launch vehicles are basically monocoque balloons. That’s why they lift off in slow motion before they veer off towards the conveniently located Bermuda Triangle.

Let’s not forget that konstantin tsiolkovsky was the rocket equation guy and the metal dirigibles guy of course. If you want to see thru the spaceship hustle start with the Russian cosmism movement.

Bytheway, the atlas rockets were made by Floyd odlum’s atlas corporation. Floyd took over joe Kennedy’s interest in rko. Floyd would eventually sell his interest in rko to Howard Hughes. Hughes aircraft would go on to make the first communication satellites in clarke orbit of course. Sometimes I’m tempted to write off the rko/spaceship relationship as mere coincidence but then I remember that NASA’s first administrator was a movie studio executive, literally…

“Glennan got more directly involved in feature-length motion pictures in March 1934 when he went to Hollywood as ERPI’s vice president and general manager of General Service Studios, Inc. (GSSI). The next year he left Electrical Research Products to take a job as operations manager of Paramount Pictures in Hollywood. Four years later he became the studio manager, a position of consid- erable importance where he was responsible for budgeting productions, lighting, sound, set construction, wardrobe, art, and film processing. During his five and a half years at Paramount Glennan provided the logistics necessary to allow the studio’s creative teams to stage their productions, working with such Hollywood notables as Cecil B. DeMille. Glennan was also credited with important innovations
in the film industry during his time at Paramount, including the first full-fledged engineering department in the business and the first recognized industrial relations department. However, in one of the typical moves in the motion picture business, he was fired in 1940. After a short stint with the Vega Airplane Corporation in Burbank during the summer of 1941, Glennan became the studio manager of Samuel Goldwyn Studios.”

“When the apollo 11 astronauts landed on the moon on 20 July 1969, I was glued to a television screen at the Bohemian Grove north of San Francisco and was as thrilled and emotionally moved as anyone could be.” – T. Keith Glennan

It’s just one part of the the grand fairy tale: to create the illusion that our wonderful benevolent governors are hard at work, heroically conquering space for the good of all when, in reality, they are only lining their own pockets, as usual.

I’m still not buying the theory that they do all these elaborate hoaxes for money. If they control the media, banks, government, and 99.9999% of the wealth, then why do they need to do a very expensive and elaborate hoax to distract the plebes?

We aren’t a threat, there really isn’t any money left to steal, they don’t need our permission to pass laws, and they control the media.

They hold all the cards.

Maybe it’s like what the Joker said in the Batman movie after he literally burned a couple hundred million in cash:

“It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message.”

They’re just doing this stuff as some kind of sick joke. That might explain some of the more recent ridiculous hoaxes, too. Do it so bad to see how much they can get away with as a test run of their Matrix control grid.

Or just as one sick joke.

Anyway, I liked the point about Jamie Hyneman. He definitely has a military vibe to him.

Well keep in mind that even between THEMSELVES, they have to keep and establish hierarchies. So the numbers DO matter to them. They can’t out-brag each other without a con-reference, right?

We saw this in the late nineties in (for example) weed salesmanship. Everyone around was making a buck, and if you weren’t that’s fine but the rest of us knew money did in FACT grow on trees. And yet those more successful at it still had all the local clout, and definitely more money. These people are doing the same thing and always have.

So the likes of JFK and Queen Elizabeth definitely have bragging rights. Everyone else must defer to them. They are in on the con, but not on the BIG con, the BIG money. They bring in numbers to impress the Queen (or whoever, she’s just a metaphor here really) and get their pats on the back.

In the military/science/industrial concept I imagine it’s no different. Whoever fucks the system the hardest gets the biggest social nod.

“As a broadcaster he worked under the fake name JohnSinclair. Or is hisreal name John Sinclair? Since Paulo Attivissimo looks like a fake name, I wouldguess the latter. Google translator keeps telling us his name is Paulo “Very Active”, since that is what his last name means. So his mother’s name is almost certainly Sinclair, at the very least”.

“Attivissimo’s blog is calledIl Disinformatico. No, seriously. That means Disinformation or theDisinformer, if it isn’t obvious. Unless he has a recent ancestor named Disinformatico, I can’t figureout how to make sense of that. He might as well title his blog “I am lying straight to your stupid American face”.

thanks, miles. i got a good laugh out of this combination of info. paulo does seem
to have a name and nomenclature problem. i guess you would get a few clicks by
calling your blog “disinfo”, though.

I was trying to figure out why the astronauts gone wild video might have been set up like Miles said. I think I have an explanation of sorts.

Maybe this was some kind of soft disclosure way for the astronauts to inadvertently admit that they didn’t go to the moon without actually saying it because they didn’t swear on the Bible… so if they were brought up in a court of law they would be technically off the hook?

My question is did the astronauts ever go to court and testify that they went to the moon?

Just like they didn’t see the stars …. because technically they didn’t see the stars because they were never there.

The documentary was simply controlled opposition, which is why Sibrel got to do the interview in the first place. The ‘swear on the bible’ malarkey is meaningless and NASA know that for most people the moon landing was real.

The way I see the “gone wild” videos is this: The videos are for Apollo believers, not for us. The astronauts responded in the videos the way they want the believers to respond to anyone who questions Apollo.

The astronauts didn’t swear on the Bible or otherwise respond to the question because questioning Apollo is too ridiculous an idea to dignify with a response. That is how they want believers to think about such questions. They want them to treat people they encounter who question Apollo with contempt and ignore any facts or logic presented by them. And, it’s also perfectly OK to punch them in the nose because our great national hero, Buzz Aldrin, did just that and he wasn’t even arrested for assault and battery because our great police and justice systems are on his side too.

The Earth, solar system, the entire Milky Way and the few thousand galaxies closest to us move in a vast “bubble” that is 250 million light years in diameter, where the average density of matter is half as high as for the rest of the universe. This is the hypothesis advanced by a theoretical physicist…

So assuming we can prove we’re in such a bubble 250 million light years across, then possibly we can explain two varying measurements of the Hubble constant. Doesn’t sound like a real solution of the mystery of the universe’s expansion.

The article ends:

“The probability that there is such a fluctuation on this scale is one in 20 to one in 5, which means that it is not a theoretician’s fantasy. There are a lot of regions like ours in the vast universe,” says professor Lombriser

I love how he can give the probability of us living in a 250 million light year bubble. That certainly proves this is no theoretician’s fantasy, that he can give us concrete numbers like that.

Tying into Miles planetary alignment theories concerning charge channelling, I found this nice graphic for checking alignments. Notice that Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are lined up nicely around the beginning of May, with Uranus and the Sun at 90°.
Apologies if anyone already posted this link.https://www.theplanetstoday.com

By the end of June the planets look like they are queuing at a kebab shop. Mainstream says nothing to worry about. They also say that major alignments are extremely rare, about every million years. Really? What a coincidence huh? All this planet wide lock down and an extremely rare planetary alignment about to occur. Well, if they can scare monger about a common cold virus, then I can scare monger about something which could actually happen. Every 12,000 years or so, a major event causes poop and fan to come into contact in a big way. Time since last event? 12,800 years. Do the math!
Social control 101. Flood the media with fake events, fake stories, fake predictions. Then when the fan blades start up for real, it’ll come as such a shock, people will crap themselves and will be much easier to control. Getting everyone used to curfew. Following government orders. Practising queuing for food. Becoming accustomed to going without. If this is just about changing petrodollars for a new world, digital currency, which idea I fully endorse as being highly probable, I also think it’s being timed to coincide with something truly shocking. It would make the transition super smooth for the PTB. There have been many huge changes in the past but nothing requiring this level of control, so what gives?

Rockets and teams and equipment and bases of operations and supplies etc? Not going to happen but I bet the money will disappear from the treasury quicker than a weasel down a rabbit hole. The ocean floor has all the minerals we need for thousands of years but it is said to be too difficult and costly to retrieve. So sending all the above, a couple of hundred million miles into deep space, will be easier and more cost effective? Sounds more like scratch & sniff cows backside to me.

“Trump Signs Executive Order That Supports Mining The Moon And Asteroids”

I wonder how they plan to return their diggings to Earth? Not that I think they will really do this. I don’t. But, I wonder what fairy tale they will tell us about how they accomplish the return of tons of ore.

NASA scientist have said that the weight is no problem because since the moon is made out of swiss cheese it’s pretty light …. And one of the big bonuses is that the astronauts actually get to perfect there zero gravity fondue skills and will at least have something fun to eat on the way home.

They’ll take their spoils from the sea bed, then send us an invoice for rockets, astronauts, space-age mining equipment, Ikea’s new range of Kevlar reinforced flat pack extraterrestrial holiday homes, thousands of tons of food, water and oxygen supplies etc. Most people will fall for it because that very personable young man Mr Cox and his crazy-eyed, anxiety attack in a suit, buddy Mr Tyson will have brainwashed them into thinking it’s all perfectly doable.

“We are currently depleting the resources we have,” Benjamin Sovacool, professor of energy policy at University of Sussex, told the BBC. “Metals such as lithium or cobalt – which you need – are mainly in places like China, Russia or Congo. And it’s difficult to get them.”

But its easier to build a rocket, land on the moon, mine in a zero oxygen environment with massive temperature fluctuations at the surface, get the load off the surface, bring it back and land it apparently.

Sussex University is a ten minute drive from me, I might go and check the guy isn’t in some sort of coma.

There is clear evidence we are already mining space. Not sure where else the decision makers could have got the vacuum that is between their ears.

I wonder if anyone is going to mention the carbon footprint of going to the moon, versus building a railway line into the Congo?

NASA says they did this 50 years ago with scotch tape and aluminum foil avoiding the effects of the Van Allen belts. With technology today, paper and a little glue should be all that is necessary, but very, very expensive paper and glue.

At first when I heard of project blue beam where the elite were going to fake an alien invasion of earth I figured that nobody would fall for that B.S.. but now I’m beginning to wonder whether or not the credulity of the people is so great that they might actually be able to pull off project blue beam and the people will believe it!

Just for the record… I don’t think they’re gonna pull off project blue beam… I’m just saying that people around me seem so gullible that they probably could get away with it!

That’s the worst video to a rap-music track I’ve ever seen. It’s not even sharp. And the lyrics are crap and the musics boring. Repetition of the word ‘gear’ makes me think it was about a drug smuggling mission that went tits-up.

Meet the new Mars rover, Perserverence, which, we’re told, will be sent to Mars this Summer.

This video shows us the “clean room” at JPL where the thing is being prepared and it shows the ultra-detailed cleaning procedure that everyone must go through before entering the room.

But, at 3:15 we see a technician in the clean room standing next to the rover and she is wearing a ton of eye and face makeup.

Why go to all that trouble removing every speck of dust from people entering the clean room but allow all that powdery make-up? Why even put on the makeup when you know you’re going to be spending the day inside a clean room and all covered up?

I meant the landing was just like Apollo. Had a look at the spacewalk. Never heard of wave blowers, but they are not necessary for the fake. What they did was speed up the film to disguise the slo-mo movement of for instance that rubbery-looking flag. If they had a projection of Earth running as a backdrop this also explains the churning clouds. And those fast-moving bubbles, of course.

Josh, apologies but I hadn’t seen your reply. Well, right when the camera and lighting change at launch, it seemed to me like going from a close-up on a miniature rocket in a diorama to a view from much further away, with crappy video quality to boot. Why not keep the up-close perspective in PIP along with the wide view, since both would be really interesting to see? My brain felt like it was seeing two completely different events.

Also, on another news site the only picture that was displayed had it in wrinkly gold foil a la Apollo moon lander.

At this point I presume all space activity is fabricated unless I see convincing evidence otherwise. When I read Miles’ paper on SpaceX, the one where he points out that the video of the Falcon landing on the ocean platform is just a video rewind of its launch I thought, oh wow I thought the same thing in the back of my head when I first saw that… it looks like it’s launching but in reverse… how do they stabilize it to land accurately without rudders, fins, or retrorockets…

Still, at first I wanted to believe, much the same as with this JAXA vehicle, but there’s that part of my brain that says… mm no this is probably fake.

They (JAXA) supposedly landed a vehicle on a large asteroid which if true is quite an accomplishment. Perhaps they picked up on pi=4 in orbital motion and ran with it.

The last week’s worth of NASA/SpaceX hype is the most recent potential space fakery, though.

The only way I’ll believe that is if they have a drone detach 100 metres off the ground to film the landing, They can slow a heavy spacecraft and land it, so doing the same thing with a drone shouldn’t be difficult for these whizz kids. It doesn’t even have to stay airborne, just land and start filming the approach.

What a shame it landed on the Far Side (Gary Larson, call your office) since nobody from Earth can see it in their telescopes now nor shine a laser at the little reflector hanging on the back beneath the seat. Lucky for us those renowned quality chinese electronics are still able to transmit data right through the moon anyway. No terrestrial blocking going on after all…

Sitting here trying to determine whether that is a lightening or a usb-c cord wrapping around that nice chrome plated compass and square. Also looks to me like the Southern Cross just to the right of the planet, so I presume that means they will book regular service through the secret nazi spaceport at south pole…

I guess you guys know Musk is allegedly sending men into space on Wed. Two old midgets. One of them is 53 and the other 49. Hard to believe no one is commenting on that. Looks like they could have hired younger and better looking actors for this fake, since that would maximize public (and female) interest. Can’t wait to see the footage. We can play spot the mice again.

I watched the launch the other day. I was saying to myself maybe the conspiracy theories are all wrong. Maybe I’ve been deluded. Let me give them benefit of the doubt. Then they went and jumped the shark and blanked the screen just as stage one backed into a landing. A moment later presto its in place. Gosh I’ve lost faith in everything now, boohoo.
I did comment about the ages somewhere. No 11 or 9 year olds could get their parents’ permission to go i presume

I was impressed how they’ve come such a long way in capsule cabin design since Apollo days. I bet there’s even built in usb charger ports and Bluetooth audio in the dash and heated seats and individual climate settings.